The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Trekky0623 on May 31, 2011, 08:32:42 AM
-
What is the general consensus on moon phases? Surely there has to be a better theory than luminescent bacteria or storm formations.
Now, the problem with moon phases and Flat Earth Theory is that the moon is illuminated as if a light source was orbiting it. Without some tricky light bending problems, therefore, the sun can't be the source. There is the option of trying to bounce light off the Earth, but you're still going to have serious problems. Therefore, the simplest solution is the silly one, which is the antimoon. Either a small object, or an inmaterial and invisible one is required in order to illuminate the moon, like so:
(http://i.imgur.com/FtV65.png)
This seems to me to be a much better solution than luminescent bacteria or storms. Here is the best solution, in my opinion: a small object is orbiting the moon from quite a distance away, so likewise it will be very difficult to spot it. Moreover, this object simply can't rotate in a circular pattern, since as we all know, the lighted side of the moon always faces the sun. Therefore, it would have to be some sort of periodic movement in a semi-circle, as shown in the picture.
Other theories are welcome, but let's try to keep the explanation to a light source, rather than any sort of silly explanations.
-
A body big enough to cover the moon would still be visible at some points even if it was dark.
-
A body big enough to cover the moon would still be visible at some points even if it was dark.
Not if it was far enough away that it never crossed directly in front of the moon from the bottom.
EDIT: Also, what do you mean "big enough"? A point light source could be enough. An object doesn't have to be big in order to illuminate something big.
-
A possible problem is the same object illuminating the Earth when it goes up and above the moon, thereby causing light when the moon was in the New phase.
-
Not if it was far enough away that it never crossed directly in front of the moon from the bottom.
EDIT: Also, what do you mean "big enough"? A point light source could be enough. An object doesn't have to be big in order to illuminate something big.
So a Lunar System not unlike the Earth System in Flat Earth Theory but with a smaller and cooler sun object?
Edit: Mind you, I'm not trying to shoot it down but just flesh it out.
-
From the Wiki:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Phases+of+the+Moon
The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
The time between two full moons, or between successive occurrences of the same phase, is about 29.53 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average. This denotes the cycle of alternating altitudes.
Why does everyone see the same phase?
Q: Why does everyone on earth see the same phase of the moon?
A: They don't. The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
The lunar phase varies depending on where you stand on a Round Earth as well. Here is the RET explanation for why the moon turns upside down when you stand on either side of it: http://web.archive.org/web/20070218184023/http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1137 (external link)
-
From the Wiki:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Phases+of+the+Moon
The Phases of the Moon
...
Why does everyone see the same phase?
Q: Why does everyone on earth see the same phase of the moon?
A: They don't. The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
...
Tom,
Your wiki article is misleading because it does not explain moon phases at all, just directions.
On a FE, the moon's phase (observed portion of illumination) would vary greatly with geographic location. It doesn't. Please try another hypothesis.
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9474/moonphases.png)
-
Indeed. Plus, unless you want to have problems illuminating the Earth during night, there is no way to create a full moon.
-
Moonshrimp explain everything.
-
Except how they move across the face of the moon without wearing it smooth.
-
Indeed. Plus, unless you want to have problems illuminating the Earth during night, there is no way to create a full moon.
That's another topic in itself. Cue bendy light.
-
From the Wiki:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Phases+of+the+Moon
The Phases of the Moon
...
Why does everyone see the same phase?
Q: Why does everyone on earth see the same phase of the moon?
A: They don't. The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
...
Tom,
Your wiki article is misleading because it does not explain moon phases at all, just directions.
On a FE, the moon's phase (observed portion of illumination) would vary greatly with geographic location. It doesn't. Please try another hypothesis.
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9474/moonphases.png)
It doesn't? Proof?
-
Stop it Tom.
And again, luminescent nuclides.
-
I don't get why the sun and moon have to be so damn close to the Flat Earth. Just raise them up. Problem solved.
-
Find me a moon phase calendar that uses location as a variable.
-
If the sun is illuminating the moon, in order to even get a quarter moon, the moon would have to be thousands of miles below the Earth.
-
Find me a moon phase calendar that uses location as a variable.
So no proof then?
-
Tom,
Your wiki article is misleading because it does not explain moon phases at all, just directions.
On a FE, the moon's phase (observed portion of illumination) would vary greatly with geographic location. It doesn't. Please try another hypothesis.
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9474/moonphases.png)
It doesn't? Proof?
Does this look familiar?
Does the moon look the same from all parts of the Earth on any one day?
Slightly more of the Southern regions of the moon can be seen from the Southern hemisphere, and a little more of the Northern regions from the Northern hemisphere, however because the Earth is small compared to its distance to the moon and the sun, these differences are very small.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase#Names_of_lunar_phases
Notice how the names and dates of the lunar phases are the same in the northern and southern hemispheres.
-
So no proof then, got it.
-
Just because you aren't willing to see it, that doesn't mean that it isn't there.
-
If you're not going to post proof then I'm done with you.
-
If you're not going to post proof then I'm done with you.
Why aren't records proof?
-
If you're not going to post proof then I'm done with you.
Why aren't records proof?
What records?
-
Fine, let's conduct an experiment. What's the moon phase in England?
-
Fine, let's conduct an experiment. What's the moon phase in England?
How should I know? I don't live in England.
-
Actually, we can't really conduct an experiment, because it's a new moon. However, lunar phase calendars are published all over the world, and there is never a discrepancy. Furthermore, some calendars, such as Chinese and Japan, base their calendars off of the moon. So, until an experiment can be conducted, it seems to point to the lunar phase being the same all over the world.
-
Actually, we can't really conduct an experiment, because it's a new moon. However, lunar phase calendars are published all over the world, and there is never a discrepancy.
Really? You've verified the moon calendars all over the world in order to make such an authoritative statement?
Just because it's published doesn't make it accurate.
See: Astrology.
-
Actually, we can't really conduct an experiment, because it's a new moon. However, lunar phase calendars are published all over the world, and there is never a discrepancy.
Really? You've verified the moon calendars all over the world in order to make such an authoritative statement?
Just because it's published doesn't make it accurate.
See: Astrology.
A moon calendar is not astrology. It makes a prediction that can be verified by looking at the sky.
-
Don't bother with Tom. Tom could tell you that a carrot is blue, and even if you pulled a thousand carrots out of the ground to prove him wrong, he'd tell you it's the wrong kind of carrot.
-
If you're not going to post proof then I'm done with you.
Look out your window.
-
Just because it's published doesn't make it accurate.
See: Astrology.
That's exactly my point also. Your published tiki page is completely inaccurate.
I'm glad we're agreeing at last. ;)
-
Actually, we can't really conduct an experiment, because it's a new moon. However, lunar phase calendars are published all over the world, and there is never a discrepancy.
Really? You've verified the moon calendars all over the world in order to make such an authoritative statement?
Just because it's published doesn't make it accurate.
See: Astrology.
A moon calendar is not astrology. It makes a prediction that can be verified by looking at the sky.
Please verify the predictions then, or show us someone who has.
-
Actually, we can't really conduct an experiment, because it's a new moon. However, lunar phase calendars are published all over the world, and there is never a discrepancy.
Really? You've verified the moon calendars all over the world in order to make such an authoritative statement?
Just because it's published doesn't make it accurate.
See: Astrology.
A moon calendar is not astrology. It makes a prediction that can be verified by looking at the sky.
Please verify the predictions then, or show us someone who has.
Shut up, Tom. You know very well moon calendars exist and that they are accurate.
-
Find me a moon phase calendar that uses location as a variable.
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/aboutmoonphases.html
-
A moon calendar is not astrology. It makes a prediction that can be verified by looking at the sky.
Please verify the predictions then, or show us someone who has.
Look at a moon phase calendar (http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_phases_calendar.phtml) and then look out your window.
-
Note that multiple different cultures have historically used the lunar phases for their calendars. If the phases changed substantially from location to location. they would have noticed. Thus for example, Muslim and Jewish religious scholars long ago noticed the slight differences in when the new moon occurs in different locations. If there were anything similar to that they would have noticed it.
-
Done:
Moon from latitude 53.79, May 11, 2011:
(http://i.imgur.com/YeRssl.png)
Moon from latitude 31.68, May 11, 2011:
(http://mo-www.harvard.edu/ImageDirectory/Moon110511014644.GIF)
There are three distinctive craters in the middle you can use to place the terminator.
-
One of those pictures is flipped. The moon isn't symmetrical.
-
One of those pictures is flipped. The moon isn't symmetrical.
Or the camera was rotated. It's from a robotic observatory, so I doubt images are always right side up.
-
One of those pictures is flipped. The moon isn't symmetrical.
Or the camera was rotated. It's from a robotic observatory, so I doubt images are always right side up.
Oh ok then, the moon's cycles are the same in two different areas then.
-
Oh wait, no, you're right. It was flipped. Sorry.
-
More:
Moon from latitude -27.48, May 20, 2011 (southern hemisphere):
(http://i.imgur.com/W2ZUb.jpg)
Moon from the netherlands, May 21, 2011 (northern hemisphere):
(http://i.imgur.com/ZrFAu.jpg)
Also, a moon calendar:
(http://i.imgur.com/FSTu9.png)
-
Pictures that provide evidence do not sway Tom, he's too far deep in his own opinion.
-
That's why I suggested that he should look out his window to see if the prediction of the moon phase calendar matches what he sees.
-
Also, how is it that everyone on the flat earth sees the same face of the moon?
(http://i.imgur.com/b2Q3Y.png)
-
Also, how is it that everyone on the flat earth sees the same face of the moon?
(http://i.imgur.com/b2Q3Y.png)
Because the moon is much further and larger than in your picture.
Nevermind. It's been muggy and I feel like crap and am not reading everything :(.
-
Actually, that's a scale picture, but I'm only showing half the flat earth. According to FET, the moon is 3000 miles up and 32 miles across.
-
Actually, that's a scale picture, but I'm only showing half the flat earth. According to FET, the moon is 3000 miles up and 32 miles across.
I'm aware, I'm just out of it today.
-
A moon calendar is not astrology. It makes a prediction that can be verified by looking at the sky.
Please verify the predictions then, or show us someone who has.
Guys, great effort on the moon phase research.
Tom, your tiki page is misleading and inaccurate, as you already know. Please amend it. As you said yourself, not all published work is accurate.
-
oh and the antimoon idea is impossible. Because while there is for example a half moon phase, we still can see stars which are optically very close to the moon.
-
A little more stuff until somebody decides to respond:
The moon's apparent size does not correspond to the phase, as it would if the phase was controlled by it rising and falling, as Tom has put forward:
Both photos are from the same location. The first is at August 10, 1987, the second is at February 2, 1988.
(http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/figures/sidebyside.jpg)
-
I really don't see how your proposed solution is any simpler than the idea that the Moon is a light source. We'd have to invent a hypothetical body that lights the moon. That the Moon simply produces this light is far more plausible.
-
Not really, since the light pattern behaves like a shadow in an orbiting system.
-
Not really, since the light pattern behaves like a shadow in an orbiting system.
What is the basis for this statement?
-
Not really, since the light pattern behaves like a shadow in an orbiting system.
What is the basis for this statement?
Based on the fact that it looks exactly like a sphere split in two revolving. Plus, if you're going to say that it gives off that light, you still have to explain the mechanism behind the light source.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif)
-
Based on the fact that it looks exactly like a sphere split in two revolving. Plus, if you're going to say that it gives off that light, you still have to explain the mechanism behind the light source.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif)
I don't think it looks like "a sphere split in two revolving" at all. Besides, the image you've posted is computer-simulated and sped up. In actual fact the Moon looks very different.
And yes, we would have to explain the mechanism beind the light source. You however have come up with a hypothetical body, for which you will also have to explain the mechanism behind the light source.
-
Regardless, there is no way for Bishop's explanation to be right, which is the explanation given in the Wiki.
-
I really don't see how your proposed solution is any simpler than the idea that the Moon is a light source. We'd have to invent a hypothetical body that lights the moon. That the Moon simply produces this light is far more plausible.
Are you saying that it's easier to invent a self-illumination mechanism (even when shadows can be clearly seen within otherwise lit craters) when an external illumination mechanism already exists (the sun)?
-
I really don't see how your proposed solution is any simpler than the idea that the Moon is a light source. We'd have to invent a hypothetical body that lights the moon. That the Moon simply produces this light is far more plausible.
Are you saying that it's easier to invent a self-illumination mechanism (even when shadows can be clearly seen within otherwise lit craters) when an external illumination mechanism already exists (the sun)?
I don't see any shadows within "otherwise lit crators". You see what you want to see. I see light patterns on the Moon.
-
What happened to the anti-moon? It was the right way to go.
Am I the only remaining supporter?
-
I don't see any shadows within "otherwise lit crators". You see what you want to see. I see light patterns on the Moon.
*sigh*
(http://www.mpc643.com/gallery/solarsystem/MoonSPole.gif)
-
Source?
-
Source?
http://www.mpc643.com/aboutus/aboutus.htm
-
Source?
MOON'S SOUTH POLE
Here is the heavily cratered south polar region of the moon. The rugged outline is non-sperical. The crater Clavius is the large crater at the left above center, with its floor in shadow and 2 smaller craters inside it outlined. Although this is a color image, the neutral gray color of the moon resembles a black-and-white. Taken 9/4/03 as a composite of RGB 0.02-second exposures at f/10.
-
I don't see any shadows within "otherwise lit crators". You see what you want to see. I see light patterns on the Moon.
*sigh*
(http://www.mpc643.com/gallery/solarsystem/MoonSPole.gif)
*sigh*
You see what you want to see. I see light patterns on the Moon.
I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.
-
I'd say we're seeing shadows in the craters on the moon, you're seeing what you want to see.
-
I'm going to have to agree with rob. While the light patterns is convenient, it isn't as likely as a light source would be.
-
I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.
And darkness is the absence of light. Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?
-
I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.
This is interesting. Either:
1. you are rejecting your own first-hand empirical evidence for the sake of a hypothesis.
2. you have different perceptive judgement to others.
-
This still hasn't been answered.
Also, how is it that everyone on the flat earth sees the same face of the moon?
(http://i.imgur.com/b2Q3Y.png)
-
I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.
And darkness is the absence of light. Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?
Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.
-
I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.
And darkness is the absence of light. Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?
Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.
So now you have to explain more things. The first being, "How does the moon emit light," and the second one would be, "Why do some parts of the moon not emit light?" It's ok to have ideas, but, "Some parts of the moon don't emit light just because," isn't going to fly.
-
I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.
And darkness is the absence of light. Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?
Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.
Isn't it odd that those areas not emitting light are in a such a pattern as to bear a striking resemblance to shadows? How do you suppose that could be? I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but wouldn't it be simpler to conclude that those dark areas in the craters are indeed what they appear to be (i.e, shadows)?
-
And darkness is the absence of light. Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?
Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.
Doesn't the fact that the craters in the "middle" of the moon (pictures) are completely lit, while those at the room of the lit face of the moon are dark (i.e. shadows) show rather conclusively that the moon is lit by an external source and not emitting its own light as you suggest?
-
So now you have to explain more things. The first being, "How does the moon emit light," and the second one would be, "Why do some parts of the moon not emit light?" It's ok to have ideas, but, "Some parts of the moon don't emit light just because," isn't going to fly.
Why isn't it going to fly? Because I'm not pulling hypotheses out of my ass like scientists do? I'm a Zetetic, remember?
Isn't it odd that those areas not emitting light are in a such a pattern as to bear a striking resemblance to shadows? How do you suppose that could be? I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but wouldn't it be simpler to conclude that those dark areas in the craters are indeed what they appear to be (i.e, shadows)?
Shadows have patterns which allow us to identify them as paterns? It's just the absence of light markjo. As for it being "simpler", if there are shadows, what's creating the shadows? I see the Moon, and it's shining. I think "the Moon shines, and the dark bits of the Moon don't shine". You think "the Moon is a sphere, and it wobbles and is lit up by a giant spherical Sun".
I know which sounds simplest to me.
-
Shadows have patterns which allow us to identify them as paterns? It's just the absence of light markjo. As for it being "simpler", if there are shadows, what's creating the shadows? I see the Moon, and it's shining. I think "the Moon shines, and the dark bits of the Moon don't shine". You think "the Moon is a sphere, and it wobbles and is lit up by a giant spherical Sun".
I know which sounds simplest to me.
What's so complicated about the sun illuminating the moon? ???
Self-illumination also raises the nagging question of the cyclic nature of the illumination source turning itself on and off in a very precise and predictable manner on a moon-wide scale. The way I see it, once you investigate further than a cursory glance, there is nothing simple about a self-illuminating moon.
-
What's more likely? That there is an external light source, or that this ball is giving off light?
(http://www.sulaco.co.za/tutorials/ex6.1.jpg)
-
So now you have to explain more things. The first being, "How does the moon emit light," and the second one would be, "Why do some parts of the moon not emit light?" It's ok to have ideas, but, "Some parts of the moon don't emit light just because," isn't going to fly.
Why isn't it going to fly? Because I'm not pulling hypotheses out of my ass like scientists do? I'm a Zetetic, remember?
Isn't it odd that those areas not emitting light are in a such a pattern as to bear a striking resemblance to shadows? How do you suppose that could be? I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but wouldn't it be simpler to conclude that those dark areas in the craters are indeed what they appear to be (i.e, shadows)?
Shadows have patterns which allow us to identify them as paterns? It's just the absence of light markjo. As for it being "simpler", if there are shadows, what's creating the shadows? I see the Moon, and it's shining. I think "the Moon shines, and the dark bits of the Moon don't shine". You think "the Moon is a sphere, and it wobbles and is lit up by a giant spherical Sun".
I know which sounds simplest to me.
I forgot, you're a Zetetic, which means we'll never get a solid answer out of you. I shouldn't have expected so much from you. I apologize. Next time I wont ask you to explain the things you're presenting to us, I'll just assume they're wrong.
-
Why isn't it going to fly? Because I'm not pulling hypotheses out of my ass like scientists do? I'm a Zetetic, remember?
Here we go with the fundamental misunderstanding of the Scientific Method.
Scientists don't "pull hypotheses out of their asses", nor are the hypotheses even relevant to the conclusion of experiments.
-
Source?
An "observatory".
Ah, there's your problem.
-
I'm a Zetetic, remember?
I don't really want to drag this too far off topic, but I think that you are a classic example of why philosophers and scientists don't get along.
Philosophy vs. Science
by Joseph Rowlands
The historical relationship between science and philosophy has not been a friendly one. Philosophers like to start with their conclusions, and work to prove them. When it came to trying to figure out what the world was like, philosophers tended to argue about what the world should be like. Science was born as a rejection of this method. Its goal was to figure out what the world was really all about, and its primary tool was actual experimentation.
We've all seen philosophy at its worst. Philosophers are often completely disconnected from reality and, more recently, don't care. Rationalism, the view that only deductive knowledge is really reliable, is commonplace. Philosophers often expound their ideas from armchairs and ivory towers, where the facts of reality don't concern them.
-
Source?
An "observatory".
Ah, there's your problem.
What's the problem with having an observatory as a source? ???
-
I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.
And darkness is the absence of light. Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?
Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.
I'm really sorry to be so blunt, but like all zetetist you are a hypocrite because you have you own hypotheses, in this case about the moon emitting light.
You're not alone here. Anti moon, dinosaur fleet, celestial gears, the list goes on.
-
Let's not forget that Wilmore's explanation is not the one listed in the wiki.
-
They should just update the whole Wiki to say, "Sorry, but we're not pulling hypotheses out of our asses like scientists do. We're Zetetic remember?"
-
You forget that Master Lord Willmires dreaming technique showed that there are shrimp on the moon.
His Antarctica theory is not in the FAQ as well but explains many many things.
I hope that he rewrites the FAQ soon, on of our greatest minds.a
-
You forget that Master Lord Willmires dreaming technique showed that there are shrimp on the moon.
His Antarctica theory is not in the FAQ as well but explains many many things.
I hope that he rewrites the FAQ soon, on of our greatest minds.a
You forget that dreams are not evidence.
-
You forget that Master Lord Willmires dreaming technique showed that there are shrimp on the moon.
His Antarctica theory is not in the FAQ as well but explains many many things.
I hope that he rewrites the FAQ soon, on of our greatest minds.a
You forget that dreams are not evidence.
Dreams do provide empirical data and more as discussed here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46815.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46815.0)
-
You forget that Master Lord Willmires dreaming technique showed that there are shrimp on the moon.
His Antarctica theory is not in the FAQ as well but explains many many things.
I hope that he rewrites the FAQ soon, on of our greatest minds.a
You forget that dreams are not evidence.
Dreams do provide empirical data and more as discussed here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46815.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46815.0)
Unfortunately, they only provide (unreliable) evidence to the person who experiences them. For example, I have ample empirical evidence that I can fly and am dating several supermodels. That doesn't make either of those things true.
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
Is that to say that you are suggesting it is not possible?
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
Is that to say that you are suggesting it is not possible?
Yes.
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
Is that to say that you are suggesting it is not possible?
Yes.
Just saying it is not possible does not make it not possible. I am not aware of a proven method to confirm its impossibilty?
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
Is that to say that you are suggesting it is not possible?
Yes.
Just saying it is not possible does not make it not possible. I am not aware of a proven method to confirm its impossibilty?
Do you understand how burden of proof works?
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
Is that to say that you are suggesting it is not possible?
Yes.
Just saying it is not possible does not make it not possible. I am not aware of a proven method to confirm its impossibilty?
Do you understand how burden of proof works?
Yes
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
Is that to say that you are suggesting it is not possible?
Yes.
Just saying it is not possible does not make it not possible. I am not aware of a proven method to confirm its impossibilty?
Do you understand how burden of proof works?
Yes
Then you should know I am under no obligation to disprove telepathy.
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
Is that to say that you are suggesting it is not possible?
Yes.
Just saying it is not possible does not make it not possible. I am not aware of a proven method to confirm its impossibilty?
Do you understand how burden of proof works?
Yes
Then you should know I am under no obligation to disprove telepathy.
I do possess the benefit of assumption in this case so I have no obligation to prove telepathy.
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
I would suggest that dreams are more likely to provide insight, rather than data.
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
Just about there. It would be more correct to say no dreams provide empirical evidence. Also, mind linking does not make sense. Are you suggesting the telepathy is possible?
Is that to say that you are suggesting it is not possible?
Yes.
Just saying it is not possible does not make it not possible. I am not aware of a proven method to confirm its impossibilty?
Do you understand how burden of proof works?
Yes
Then you should know I am under no obligation to disprove telepathy.
I do possess the benefit of assumption in this case so I have no obligation to prove telepathy.
No. I possess the benefit of assumption. You have the burden of proof.
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
I would suggest that dreams are more likely to provide insight, rather than data.
I agree that insight is sometimes the result, as well. If the claimant has a higher level of evidence it would only then be classified as data.
No. I possess the benefit of assumption. You have the burden of proof.
Incorrect
update: fyi, the legal question notwithstanding there are people that if available will give evidence of telepathy. On the flip side of the coin I am quite interested to hear about the methods available to disprove the concept.
-
I see your point. It would be better stated that not all dreams provide empirical evidence or data but that both dreams and mind linking have the capacity to result in useable data, depending on the experience.
I would suggest that dreams are more likely to provide insight, rather than data.
I agree that insight is sometimes the result, as well. If the claimant has a higher level of evidence it would only then be classified as data.
No. I possess the benefit of assumption. You have the burden of proof.
Incorrect
Incorrect.
It is not possible to prove telepathy is impossible.
It is possible to prove telepathy is possible.
You can't prove a negative, so you carry the burden.
-
You are still incorrect (you had previously accepted the burden of proof requirement) but I will be interested to get responses from those that have experienced it and those that can dispute the claim of impossibility.
-
Just saying it is not possible does not make it not possible. I am not aware of a proven method to confirm its impossibilty?
Since it's rather difficult to prove a negative, are you aware of any proven methods to confirm its existence?
-
You are still incorrect (you had previously accepted the burden of proof requirement) but I will be interested to get responses from those that have experienced it and those that can dispute the claim of impossibility.
How am I incorrect? Just saying I am incorrect does not make me incorrect.
-
I'm completely lost. Can some please enlighten me as to why we are even wearing our keyboards out discussing:
1. Why dreams provide reliable scientific data
2. Why telepathy exists because no one as proven it doesn't exist
Gothem is clearly TB on LSD.
-
The TB compliment is appreciated (sans the LSD) and agreed that we have strayed from the concerns of the OP. Time to return to task.
-
Also, moonrise and moonset change in accordance with phase. It seems increasingly unlikely that the sun is not involved.
-
Flat earthers discussing "burden of proof issue and friends" and not answering directly to the evidence presented concerning the op - typical.
-
Flat earthers discussing "burden of proof issue and friends" and not answering directly to the evidence presented concerning the op - typical.
The derailing was my fault -- and I'm an RE'er.
-
it was not your fault - they ignore evidence and arguments presented.
-
it was not your fault - they ignore evidence and arguments presented.
There's no reason for us to explain our theories to everyone who passes through for three days. Discover them on your own.
-
it was not your fault - they ignore evidence and arguments presented.
There's no reason for us to explain our theories to everyone who passes through for three days. Discover them on your own.
Hell I've been here for over a year and I still don't understand what you are loosely referring to as a theory. No one has explained it other than it has to be on a flat Earth, because the sun's rays can't be a reflection off the surface of the moon. I understand that the same questions asked over and over can get annoying, but if they were actually explained for once, maybe the questions would end.
-
What's so complicated about the sun illuminating the moon? ???
What's complicated about it? How many assumptions are necessary to build a system in which the Sun illuminates the Moon? A lot. How many are required to say that because the Moon looks like it emits light, it probably emits light?
The idea that the Sun illuminates the Moon is predicated on the entire structure of globularist cosmology. The idea that the Moon emits light is based on empirical evidence that anyone is free to observe for themselves.
-
Then how do you explain the shadows in the craters?
-
Then how do you explain the shadows in the craters?
They're not shadows.
-
*sigh*
How do you explain the dark areas that make it look like the moon has craters?
-
Then how do you explain the shadows in the craters?
They're not shadows.
Then what are they? When I observe it, they appear to be shadows.
-
*sigh*
How do you explain the dark areas that make it look like the moon has craters?
They're the parts of the Moon that aren't bright.
Would you prefer it if I came up with a Shadow Sun, and an entire cosmology based around it? You know, a scientific hypothesis?
Then what are they? When I observe it, they appear to be shadows.
They are the absence of light. Do you see dark between the stars and think, "it must be a shadow cast by a super Sun, lighting all the little mountain-tops! And the gaps inbetween are shadows!
-
*sigh*
How do you explain the dark areas that make it look like the moon has craters?
They're the parts of the Moon that aren't bright.
Would you prefer it if I came up with a Shadow Sun, and an entire cosmology based around it? You know, a scientific hypothesis?
Then what are they? When I observe it, they appear to be shadows.
They are the absence of light. Do you see dark between the stars and think, "it must be a shadow cast by a super Sun, lighting all the little mountain-tops! And the gaps inbetween are shadows!
That would be stupid. Obviously the dark between the stars is an absence of light coming from that spot. What I guess you need to explain then, is why the moon only happens to have dark spots that are consistent with what RET would predict because of the sun light reflecting off of it's surface. Seems pretty far fetched that, "It just happens I guess! Who woulda thought!"
-
RET doesn't 'predict' those things. Those things were always observable, long before RET came along. It's not as if people came up with RET having never seen the Moon.
-
But the dark spots are consistent with an outside light source hitting it. Why does the moon have dark spots that just so happen to look like shadows created by a crater? This is the part where Zeteticism falls short to me, because science knows why, Zeteticism just seems to derail and avoid.
-
But the dark spots are consistent with an outside light source hitting it. Why does the moon have dark spots that just so happen to look like shadows created by a crater? This is the part where Zeteticism falls short to me, because science knows why, Zeteticism just seems to derail and avoid.
They don't look like shadows unless you first assume that they are. Shadows don't 'look' like anything. They can be any shape, any size. I see arks posts, I think "those are spots on the Moon that are dark". I don't think, "there's an invisible Sun, so those are shadows!"
Seriously, look at what you see, and draw conclusions from that, not your textbook.
-
(http://www.mpc643.com/gallery/solarsystem/MoonSPole.gif)
If I had no idea the moon is illuminated by the sun, and I saw that picture, I would assume the moon is lumpy and a light is shining on it.
-
(http://www.mpc643.com/gallery/solarsystem/MoonSPole.gif)
If I had no idea the moon is illuminated by the sun, and I saw that picture, I would assume the moon is lumpy and a light is shining on it.
You sneak, I was going to do this exact same thing. However, my statement stands, that is obviously an outside light source and the dark parts are shadows in the craters.
-
Just to be sure, I asked my little sister. She has never seen a picture of the moon like this. I asked her what she saw. She said "A weird-looking rock above a light".
-
What's so complicated about the sun illuminating the moon? ???
What's complicated about it? How many assumptions are necessary to build a system in which the Sun illuminates the Moon? A lot.
Let's see. We must assume that the sun emits light and we must assume that the moon reflects it. What else is there to assume?
How many are required to say that because the Moon looks like it emits light, it probably emits light?
Except that the moon is not always illuminated. You must construct some sort of mechanism that explains how the moon can go through its light and dark periods in such a regular and predictable cycle that ancient astronomers all over the world could independently create calendars accurate enough to run entire civilizations.
-
and now is the time for the flat earthers to ignore your post because it contains LOGIC.
-
Markjo, it's either the migration of a shrimp-like bacteria or an anti-moon. Now all they have to do is submit evidence of the anti-moon, and the dark part of space with no stars wont cut it, or figure out how a massive colony of bacteria migrates like that.
-
But it is much simpler theory than a weird, complex, sun illuminating our moon "theory"...
-
there's an invisible Sun
???
-
But it is much simpler theory than a weird, complex, sun illuminating our moon "theory"...
How is the sun illuminating the moon complex? It's actually quite simple if you think about it.
-
I believe the sun illuminates the moon.
As a Zetetic, I must believe what I see, and through my telescope I can see shadows.
Until we capture a moonshrimp and see it illuminate itself I must believe in what I see.
I wish I had Master Lord Willmires powers and then I too could full belive in the moonshrimp theory.
The sun and the moon are roughly 3000 miles ablove the earth
But because of uneven mass, sometimes the sun is higher and sometimes lower. This causes the phases of the moon. A simple answer I know, but we must rule out the simplest answers before we start thinking about very complex ones.
-
sillyrob it was an irony :)
-
What's so complicated about the sun illuminating the moon? ???
What's complicated about it? How many assumptions are necessary to build a system in which the Sun illuminates the Moon? A lot. How many are required to say that because the Moon looks like it emits light, it probably emits light?
The idea that the Sun illuminates the Moon is predicated on the entire structure of globularist cosmology. The idea that the Moon emits light is based on empirical evidence that anyone is free to observe for themselves.
But the only part of the moon that's ever illuminated is the part that's facing the sun. So either the moon is illuminated by the sun (which we know independently to be a source of light), or the moon has its own internal source of light that for some reason only operates when it's facing the sun and is entirely redundant since the sun (which we know to be a light source) would illuminate the moon even if the moon didn't have its own internal source of light. Clearly, the possibility that involves the arbitrary postulation of a completely redundant phenomenon is the one that makes more sense.
It's posts like these that are the reason I maintain that even the "serious FE'ers" who most people here seem to think really believe the Earth is flat are actually trolls. They're just better trolls than the others. Because, really, either they're trolls or they're dumb as rocks. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're trolls.
-
From the Wiki:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Phases+of+the+Moon
The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
The time between two full moons, or between successive occurrences of the same phase, is about 29.53 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average. This denotes the cycle of alternating altitudes.
Why does everyone see the same phase?
Q: Why does everyone on earth see the same phase of the moon?
A: They don't. The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
The lunar phase varies depending on where you stand on a Round Earth as well. Here is the RET explanation for why the moon turns upside down when you stand on either side of it: http://web.archive.org/web/20070218184023/http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1137 (external link)
That would easy to notice and impossible to cover up, it would be easy to verify that, just phone someone far away and ask what phase of the moon it is, if it's significantly different for the difference then you have found strong evidence for FE, otherwise you have found strong evidence for RE. Ok Tom Bishop, get cracking!
-
From the Wiki:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Phases+of+the+Moon
The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
The time between two full moons, or between successive occurrences of the same phase, is about 29.53 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average. This denotes the cycle of alternating altitudes.
Why does everyone see the same phase?
Q: Why does everyone on earth see the same phase of the moon?
A: They don't. The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
The lunar phase varies depending on where you stand on a Round Earth as well. Here is the RET explanation for why the moon turns upside down when you stand on either side of it: http://web.archive.org/web/20070218184023/http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1137 (external link)
That would easy to notice and impossible to cover up, it would be easy to verify that, just phone someone far away and ask what phase of the moon it is, if it's significantly different for the difference then you have found strong evidence for FE, otherwise you have found strong evidence for RE. Ok Tom Bishop, get cracking!
Bump. Tom, this is an easy experiment to do.
-
Based on the fact that it looks exactly like a sphere split in two revolving. Plus, if you're going to say that it gives off that light, you still have to explain the mechanism behind the light source.
So now you have to explain more things. The first being, "How does the moon emit light," and the second one would be, "Why do some parts of the moon not emit light?" It's ok to have ideas, but, "Some parts of the moon don't emit light just because," isn't going to fly.
Except that the moon is not always illuminated. You must construct some sort of mechanism that explains how the moon can go through its light and dark periods in such a regular and predictable cycle that ancient astronomers all over the world could independently create calendars accurate enough to run entire civilizations.
I find it hilarious that Lord Wilmore gets berated for not explaining the "mechanism that lights the moon at different times of the month".
I mean nobody is asking, "What keeps these things floating above our heads in the first place?"
It just seems silly that the shills like ever present Markjo get pissed off and disregard the possibility that the Moon is self luminescent JUST because one cannot explain EXACTLY what makes the Moon shine.
Nobody is asking what would make the Sun shine either!
I feel like when shills react like this, it means people are on the right track.
A self luminescent moon makes a lot of sense.
-
Based on the fact that it looks exactly like a sphere split in two revolving. Plus, if you're going to say that it gives off that light, you still have to explain the mechanism behind the light source.
So now you have to explain more things. The first being, "How does the moon emit light," and the second one would be, "Why do some parts of the moon not emit light?" It's ok to have ideas, but, "Some parts of the moon don't emit light just because," isn't going to fly.
Except that the moon is not always illuminated. You must construct some sort of mechanism that explains how the moon can go through its light and dark periods in such a regular and predictable cycle that ancient astronomers all over the world could independently create calendars accurate enough to run entire civilizations.
I find it hilarious that Lord Wilmore gets berated for not explaining the "mechanism that lights the moon at different times of the month".
I mean nobody is asking, "What keeps these things floating above our heads in the first place?"
It just seems silly that the shills like ever present Markjo get pissed off and disregard the possibility that the Moon is self luminescent JUST because one cannot explain EXACTLY what makes the Moon shine.
Nobody is asking what would make the Sun shine either!
I feel like when shills react like this, it means people are on the right track.
A self luminescent moon makes a lot of sense.
I find it odd that you would necro-bump a 6 year old thread for no good reason.
-
Based on the fact that it looks exactly like a sphere split in two revolving. Plus, if you're going to say that it gives off that light, you still have to explain the mechanism behind the light source.
So now you have to explain more things. The first being, "How does the moon emit light," and the second one would be, "Why do some parts of the moon not emit light?" It's ok to have ideas, but, "Some parts of the moon don't emit light just because," isn't going to fly.
Except that the moon is not always illuminated. You must construct some sort of mechanism that explains how the moon can go through its light and dark periods in such a regular and predictable cycle that ancient astronomers all over the world could independently create calendars accurate enough to run entire civilizations.
I find it hilarious that Lord Wilmore gets berated for not explaining the "mechanism that lights the moon at different times of the month".
I mean nobody is asking, "What keeps these things floating above our heads in the first place?"
It just seems silly that the shills like ever present Markjo get pissed off and disregard the possibility that the Moon is self luminescent JUST because one cannot explain EXACTLY what makes the Moon shine.
Nobody is asking what would make the Sun shine either!
I feel like when shills react like this, it means people are on the right track.
A self luminescent moon makes a lot of sense.
What makes the Moon shine has been PRECISELY explained.
What makes the Sun shine has been PRECISELY explained.
You are a shill for the idiocy of the human race.
-
A self luminescent moon makes a lot of sense.
:-\