1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory

« on: October 29, 2019, 02:17:28 AM »

If stars were 50km away weather balloons would almost reach them. Stars would look bigger when seen from airplanes or mountain peaks.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory

« on: October 28, 2019, 01:35:23 PM »

I think in "standard" FE theory the sun is around 5000 km away and the stars are somewhat further away than that. The 50km theory is just Sando's and is not really representative.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from and airline pilot

« on: October 22, 2019, 10:51:53 AM »

If I were a flat earther flying to antarctica and the flight was cancelled I would also be suspicious.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: New complete model of infinite flat earth

« on: October 22, 2019, 02:10:57 AM »

According to Puranic cosmography, the world is divided into seven concentric island continents (sapta-dvipa vasumati) separated by the seven encircling oceans, each double the size of the preceding one (going out from within).

Seven intermediate oceans consist of salt-water, sugarcane juice, wine, ghee, yogurt, milk and water respectively. The mountain range called Lokaloka, meaning "world-no-world", stretches across this final sea, delineating the known world from the dark void.

There's an ocean of wine out there and we are stuck with the salt water ocean, not fair.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: New Member

« on: October 19, 2019, 12:03:28 AM »

This is awesome. I hope Mad Mike shows up on the forums.

You angry globularists need to control yourselves.

This forum would be pretty boring without the globularist.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.

« on: October 18, 2019, 02:03:43 PM »

You have yet to show why we can trust that the word didn't have a different meaning in the culture in question.

John, maybe you can show why we should trust you instead of trusting biblical Hebrew dictionaries and Hebrew speakers. You are the one discovering the new meaning for the word, you should be the one proving your point.

If the word could have different meanings in the past, then how do you know what those meanings were? Can you just invent anything? Maybe the verse says that the earth is spinning  around the sun, because who knows it could also have this meaning in the culture in question, right?  according to your logic why not?

I showed you what scholars say. A Hebrew speaker also told you what the word actually means.  It's a common word, nothing fancy. I suggest looking at the other 600 appearances of strong-6965 and make your decision.

There are several places where the accepted translations are incorrect.

Yes translations can be misleading, so forget about the translation and look at the meaning of the Hebrews word, that's been like my whole point all along.

Spheres do not have a face, let me remind you. More than this, there were clearly not two adamic creations.

The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, but I think the flat earth cosmology is quite clear  in the bible. I'm pretty sure Hebrews in biblical times believed the earth was flat, so it's not a surprise.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.

« on: October 18, 2019, 01:06:56 PM »

Perhaps because the earth does not have legs? 'Rise up' is one of the definitions in the list you posted.

That's actually funny, how do you know the earth doesn't have legs? Have you looked at the under side of the earth?

I think there are other ways to make sense of the verse without inventing new meanings for Hebrew words or adding legs to the earth.

1c) (Polel) to raise up

1d) (Hithpael) to raise oneself, rise up

1e) (Hiphil)

1e1) to cause to arise, raise

1c) Polel is a rare stem formation. I don't think this is the form used in verse in question, maybe Stankann can confirm this.

1d) Hithpaelis  the reflexive form, which doesn't seem to be the form used in the verse in question.

1e) Hiphil is the causative form, which neither seem to be the form used in the verse in question.

If you look at the biblical dictionary entry, you will see the verb is also used for rising up in violence or rising up  in order to do something important, for example:

Psalm 17:7 (KJV)
Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.

Psalm 139:21-22  (KJV)
Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

Translation "Raise up" is used in the sense of building something...
Isaiah 44:26
Who confirms the word of His servant, And performs the counsel of His messengers; Who says to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be inhabited,’ To the cities of Judah, ‘You shall be built,’ And I will raise up her waste places;

Isaiah 61:4 (KJV)
And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.

...or bring on the scene

Genesis 38:8
Then Judah said to Onan, "Sleep with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother."

Zechariah 11:16
For I am going to raise up a shepherd over the land who will not care for the lost, or seek the young, or heal the injured, or feed the healthy, but will eat the meat of the choice sheep, tearing off their hooves.

Recall, too, that word 'arise' in dictionaries like dictionary.com was in the context of rising when it came to natural phenomena:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arises
...

This is just the meaning of a word in English, but Isaiah was written in Hebrew, so it isn't relevant.

The fact that Strong-6965 is translated as Arise in many cases, doesn't mean that all English uses of Arise can be attributed to the Hebrew word. Do you speak other languages other than English? This is easier to understand if you are familiar with more than one language.

Instead of looking at English dictionaries maybe you could have a look at biblical Hebrew dictionary entry I posted earlier or at this link: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm

I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not a bible expert, but I was able to find all this information just using google. What will happen when you debate someone who speaks Hebrew and knows the Bible? If you are serious about this I think you need to do more research and maybe learn some Hebrew and Greek.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.

« on: October 18, 2019, 08:47:58 AM »

There is no way you can know what those that sung that song meant by those words at the time, or when it was originally written. I have no real stake in whether or not the bible literally says the earth is flat. Your argument just doesn't hold its weight.

Show me that that camp song *meant* the same thing at its conception and you will have at least supported your point. This, however, is not possible.

Sometimes it's difficult to understand what the author of a bible verse exactly meant and the bible is certanly open to interpretation. However the meaning of most of the words used in the bible is known fairly well, specially common words as the one in question. Just check a biblical dictionary if you dont want to believe random people.

Maybe you can explain why you think Isaiah's author meant "go up"  when he wrote "stand up"?

Maybe you also think when the bible says "up" it means "down"? or "right" means "left"?  since it was written so long ago we cannot know... is that what you mean?

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.

« on: October 17, 2019, 02:56:46 PM »

My point being, which Foucault puts beautifully in his work 'The Order of Things', is that it is impossible to draw the lines you are drawing - even with a (mostly) dead language.

This book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought — our thought, the thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography — breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a “certain Chinese encyclopedia” in which it is written that “animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off” look like flies”. In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that.

This exampkle is so foreign that we cannot possibly know what was meant by this categorization without having a complete knowledge of the ouvre of the time, including having lived there. I would contend - to a far lesser extent - that this is true of Hewbrew, especially that of the bible, as well. There is an impossibility of thinking like the ancient hebrews and that impossibility extends to their language.

As such, it makes sense to use concordance indexes like Bishop suggests.

Qum means to stand up and it's sometimes translated to English as  'to rise'. Rise in English has also the meaning of something going up, but the bible wasn't written in english so why is that relevant?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.

« on: October 17, 2019, 02:08:37 AM »

Its a good thing we aren't talking about a book of myth, but instead a clearly historical account - albeit one that is easily contested.

To kopfverderber response, obviously biblical scholars will choose the translations that suit their worldview best, and ignore those that seem ludicrous to them -- especially as they are for the most part not taking the work literally.

It has nothing to do with world views. The verb in question literally means to stand or arise from seated position. Its used like this in more than 600 places in the bible, just go and have a look, I already did. The same word exists in aramaic with the exact same meaning.

When the meaning is "go up" different words are used. There are plenty of examples in the bible as well. I suggest have a look at the bible, I already did.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is Sigma Octantis if the Earth is flat?

« on: October 14, 2019, 01:53:11 AM »

At enough southern latitude Sigma Octantis can be observed due south from opposite meridians at the same time. 

This happens for at least a few weeks during winter from South America / Australia and even longer from Antarctica with 6 months of continuous night.

FE never explain how is this possible in the FE map centered on the north pole.  They either ignore the issue or deny it happens.

Even p-brain video with all the perspective hocus pocus hasn't an answer for that. 

If any FE is still reading this topic, please explain what is the observable difference between polaris and sigma octantis, that makes you think one of them is at the center of the rotating skies and the other one is not.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is Sigma Octantis if the Earth is flat?

« on: October 13, 2019, 01:58:33 AM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Celestial_Rotationü

Under the Monopole model P-Brane explains the counter-rotation of the stars as a consequence of perspective. The author uses the Sun's crepuscular rays as an example for how motion and perspective can seem to cause anti-rotations in two different directions, much like how spinning in an office chair and looking up and down can cause the appearance of two rotations in different directions.

So according to FE wiki the sky looks like looking up and down from a spinning earth, I mean chair. Not bad.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is Sigma Octantis if the Earth is flat?

« on: October 12, 2019, 04:14:26 PM »

Here's Tom's answer then, which is the same as having no answer. 

Q. How can two people on opposite sides of the earth in Australia and South Ameirca both see the same South Pole Stars simultaneously?
A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.

Sigma  Octantis is in fact visible at the
same time from Australia and South America for a few days each year, or from South America and South Africa. Another FE fail.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Turkish Army Entering Syria

« on: October 11, 2019, 07:50:41 AM »

The US has a big share of responsibility in the mess the Middle East is. The US has been constantly meddling in middle east affairs and playing war games on other people's countries for the last 70 years.

Turkey didn't ask for both its southern neighbors to be turned into a permanent warzone ruled by militias and islamic terrorist.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Turkish Army Entering Syria

« on: October 11, 2019, 12:32:31 AM »

Not all irish are terrrorist but IRA is  a terrorist organization. Not all basques are terrorist, but ETA is a terrorist organisation. We can surely differentiate who is a terrorist who is not once we agree on a definition of terrorism.

Let's not forget that the PKK is listed as terrorist organisation by the EU. The Turkish government and army have committed terrible crimes against its own population, but let's not forget that the Kurdish side has done the same.

In the last years the line between terrorist and guerrilla fighter has become thinner in the middle east. Kurdish guerrillas have been very useful fighting Daesh, but let's not pretend they are saints.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: EINSTEIN SPILLED THE BEANS

« on: October 10, 2019, 06:48:23 AM »

- Martin G. Selbrede

Martin G. Selbrede. Vicepresident of the Chalcedon Foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedon_Foundation


The Chalcedon Foundation advocates the Christian Reconstructionism movement which "believes Christians must take control of society for 1,000 years before the Second Coming of Christ can be achieved." Rushdoony believed the Bible should be adopted as law, including Scriptures advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, striking or cursing a parent, adultery, and lying.

In 2005, the Chalcedon Foundation was designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).The Chalcedon Foundation promotes Christian Reconstruction and calls for the "imposition of Old Testament law on America and the world." According to the SPLC, this "embraces the most draconian of religious views", being "opposed to modern notions of equality, democracy or tolerance." The SPLC also stated that Rushdoony supported the death penalty for homosexuals, opposed interracial marriage, denied the Holocaust, and included "incorrigible children" as a group of people deserving of the death penalty.


Scary stuff   

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?

« on: October 09, 2019, 12:55:32 PM »

Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?

It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

If you live on a sphere and you want to map the sky around that sphere how would you do it?  For practical purposes you want to know the position and paths of celestial objects relative to your position, so you project the sky on an imaginary sphere and that allows you to use a coordinate system to know where each object is.

When you are an astronomer on earth, you want to know where to look to find a particular object in the sky. The relevant information is the object's position and path relative to your position.

It's not that difficult to understand, I'm quite surprised that you are asking this.

I would recommend looking into the Moon Tilt Illusion problem and the Celestial Sphere. The Celestial Sphere argument says that the celestial bodies are pasted on a celestial sphere at different angles, and that straight rays of light become curved on it.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

Numerous phenomena act as if the sky is a planetarium dome where straight lines become curved.

Thank you for the tips, but if I want to learn about an astronomy topic a flat earth wiki would be the last place where I would look.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?

« on: October 09, 2019, 12:24:55 PM »

So RE has an imaginary sphere around it where straight lines become curves? Okay...

If you live on a sphere and you want to map the sky around that sphere how would you do it?  For practical purposes you want to know the position and paths of celestial objects relative to your position, so you project the sky on an imaginary sphere and that allows you to use a coordinate system to know where each object is.

When you are an astronomer on earth, you want to know where to look to find a particular object in the sky. The relevant information is the object's position and path relative to your position.

It's not that difficult to understand, I'm quite surprised that you are asking this.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?

« on: October 09, 2019, 11:10:33 AM »

You don't  need to know anything about gravity to understand how a sunset works on RE. That was well know before Newton was born.

If you want to simulate the system you do. If you just want to draw cartoons for a book you do not.

So every time FE makes a claim without providing the mathematical formulas for physical laws behind it we can assume it's just cartoons for a book, noted.

Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.

This form consists of long streamers or pillars, which extend in the direction of the dipping magnetic needle. They look curved or arched, like the celestial sphere on which they are projected, but they are really straight.

Kepler writes, 'But our vision has no surface like that of a painting on which it may look at the picture of the hemisphere but only that surface of the sky above in which it sees comets, and it imagines a sphere by the natural instinct of vision. But if a picture of things is extended in straight lines into a concave sphere, and if our vision is in the center of this, the traces of those things will not be straight lines, but, by Hercules, curved ones'

Maybe Kepler thought that the celestial sphere was a real thing, I wouldn't know. In modern astronomy the celestial sphere is practical tool. It's just a model to map the sky from our point of view on earth. That's quite clear even in your first  quotation, you are basically refuting yourself:

Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?

« on: October 09, 2019, 10:34:47 AM »

These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.

The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.

Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.

It's trivially easy for the rotating earth to explain a sunset.  It's the flat earth explanations that get complicated.  Which explanation do you think that Occam would prefer?

The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.

If we want to ignore that and focus on just the possibility of the rotation of the earth being able to explain observations, that is also questionable on assessment of the details. The sun is seen to curve in the sky in different directions over the course of the year, which is attributed to the celestial sphere; a geometrical curiosity in astronomy which assumes that the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere above the observer whereupon bodies rest at different angles to each other and where straight lines become curved.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

You don't  need to know anything about gravity to understand how a sunset works on RE. That was well know before Newton was born.

In  astronomy celestial bodies are not attached to a sphere. We observers are attached to a rotating  sphere called "the earth". From our rotating point of view, it looks as if the sky is rotating above us, but we know for fact that we are the ones rotating.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society Memes

« on: October 08, 2019, 10:48:21 PM »

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Difficult to Grasp.

« on: October 08, 2019, 10:22:10 PM »

Welcome Dak.

Most people who don't follow mainstream are looked at differently.

Now that truth of Plane Earth has been brought into view, Round Earthers are now laughed at.

Do you trust NASA? (You can’t be a Flat Earther and trust NASA.)

I used to like NASA and was fascinated with all of these supposed planets like Mars, Venus, Jupiter, etc. Now, I don't like NASA anymore. I also stopped liking science altogether.

If you don't like science, then you shouldn't be here. By here, I mean the internet. Because all of the internet, all the computers and servers and mobile phones, all of that is science.

Your cars and fancy bikes, aircraft and boats. That's all science. The concrete of yiur homes, the asphalt of your streets. Glass, synthetic clothing materials, even the food you eat. All science and the applicarion of science.

Strange that isn't it? And nothing to do with NASA at that.

Mostly nothing anyway.

  I don't actually have anything against science, but I do have something against being lied to about the supposed shape of the Earth and evolution -evolution is actually a lie.

I don't know where people on this forum get the idea that just because I'm not a big fan of science as much as I used to, then I must hate technology. Is THIS how you think of me? Seriously?

Listen, the whole idea of the flat Earth is not easy to grasp, especially for those who are asleep and those who don't know any better. For me, this is diving deep into the rabbit hole.

Technology is great, but it's a bit of a contradiction when people accept technology while rejecting the science that technology is based upon.

Anyone is of course free to disagree with scientists or reject parts of science, but saying the scientist lie is going a bit too far I think. Maybe some do, but I think most scientist are honest, regardless of being right or wrong.

If I understand correctly you are already a creationist? In that case becoming a flatearther is just a small step. If you are already rejecting evolution, why not reject gravity and the whole of astronomy as well. Alternatively if you don't consider Flatearth palatable you might have a look at RE geocentrism. With RE geocentrism you can still believe that the earth is round while rejecting lots of science at the same time.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION

« on: October 08, 2019, 12:48:39 PM »

A more recent and extensive publication on the topic is Celestial Shadows: Eclipses, Transits, and Occultations.  By John Westfall, William Sheehan, 2015, Springer Verlag.

Espenak suggested that enlargement is caused by a layer of meteoric dust at an altitude of about 120-150 km (Espenak 1989: 206), but the fact that the amount of umbral enlargement varies among Eclipses implies that such layer cannot be the only factor (Karkoschka 1996: 98).

There appears to be a significant effect on umbral size due to the ozone layer in Earth's stratosphere, which is particularly effective in absorbing red light - just the opposite of the troposphere, where blue light is absorved- but o average enlarging the umbra by about 90km, in agreement with observations. (Karkoschka 1996: 99/100).

Without disrespecting the work of Dr Marmet,  it seems that he is not addressing any of the above points and the earth's atmosphere is still the most convincing explanation.

What Dr Marmet is offering as evidence is:
- A calculation of terrestrial atmosphere from"Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars" (Kenneth R. Lang, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992, p. 36):

- Some measurements from materials ejected by volcano El Chichon from Patrick McCormick (Sky & Telescope, October 1982, p.390).

We can see that Dr. Marmet is not really addressing the refraction caused by meteoric dust or ozone.

The claim the atmosphere would be too thin is a lot older and it's based on an outdated understanding of earth's atmosphere. Dr. Marmet's is using  Seeliger's idea from 1896:
Hugo Hans von Seeliger (1849-1924) concluded that the atmosphere would be so thin at such heights that significant absorption would be impossible, the implication being that the apparent enlargement must be a mere contrast effect of about 52 arc sec (Seeliger 1896:44)

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION

« on: October 08, 2019, 09:27:48 AM »

Use CN for your messages.

Dr. Marmet is writing an introduction to the paper, listing the official science prerogatives.

Then, he DEMOLISHES those claims:

However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse.

There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
        An hypothetical observer located on the Moon would see those rays being refracted by the Earth atmosphere and the Sun would appear bigger. Consequently, this second effect makes the Sun rays converge due to a lensing effect of our atmosphere. Therefore, due to that lensing effect, the umbra projected on the Moon would be smaller. This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.

The green to violet light of the spectrum is scattered by the atmosphere before reaching the moon,  that's why we see the moon red. Refraction makes the moon look reddish, it doesn't make the umbra any smaller. An observer on the moon would see a red ring around the earth, like shown in the last video here https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4356.

The edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse rather than sharp, that is caused by the earth's atmosphere. A shadow object without atmosphere would cause a sharper edge.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION

« on: October 08, 2019, 02:43:04 AM »

Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?

Of course: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra. Since the calculations do not match the astronomical observations there is only one option left: the lunar eclipse is NOT caused by the Earth.

That doesn't equal an Allais effect experiment. Please be serious.

Allais effect experiments involve pendulums. I'm sure you know this.

Has the Allais effect ever been observed in a pendulum during a lunar eclipse? lacking that you have no data. You are making your claim without any data to back it.

You whole point is that according to you scientist can't explain a deviation in the shadow size of 2%. Then you claim that must be Allais effect with no data to back it up and from there you automatically jump to "it must be shadow object", as if that would make any sense or explain anything.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION

« on: October 08, 2019, 02:15:17 AM »

you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.

The Allais effect is very real:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

Lunar eclipses , we are now dealing with lunar eclipses. Aren't all those allais effect experiments in your link solar eclipses?

Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION

« on: October 07, 2019, 11:53:53 PM »

DURING EACH AND EVERY LUNAR ECLIPSE RECORDED FOR THE PAST 180 YEARS.

Each time you deal with the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations you are looking at the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

If you disagree, please explain these two humongous discrepancies.

and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

The author does not address/explain the SECOND discrepancy: the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

No optical illusion there.

Both observations prove the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

That's just your speculation. There are other more pausible explanations.

Fact: you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.

Fact: none of the papers you are citing claim that lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth.

Once again you are just cherry picking quotes from different authors, ignoring the parts that don't suit you and building your own story, a fantasy story.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION

« on: October 07, 2019, 10:59:18 PM »

Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html

Is this supposed to be a joke?

That is MY REFERENCE!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

Paul Marmet and Christine Couture [1], for their part, believe that the actual umbra of the Earth projected on the Moon is not as big as observed, that the sensitivity of the eyes is a factor leading necessarily to an umbral enlargement and that almost the totality of the reported umbra-penumbra limit displacement is an optical effect that has nothing to do with the thickness of the Earth atmosphere.

Dr. Marmet proves that the usual explanation accepted by modern science for the 2% Earth's larger umbra during a lunar eclipse, namely atmospheric absorption, cannot be true.

So that's your reference, yet the reference says nothing about the allais effect. You just pick the few sentences  you like from it and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

So when was the Allais effect reported in a lunar eclipse? If you have no data, then it's not even worth considering as possible explanation. All you have is speculation.

Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.  You like to cite papers so much, please cite paper less than 50 years old that claim lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth. Found any?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION

« on: October 07, 2019, 10:28:09 PM »

Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

The 2% enlargement of the earh's shadow is not going to change things much. I still don't know what is the relationship with the selenelion or why is that relevant here. The average enlargement is generally considered when calculating the eclipse.

The allais effect has been reported only for solar eclipses, is that right? we are now dealing with a lunar eclipse. Just because you found some obscure paper by someone called Russell Bagdoo (who is that?)  it doesn't mean the shadow enlargement is caused by the allais effect, that's just what you want.

Scientist have other explanations for the shadow enlargement. Most  widely accepted explanation is that it's caused by the atmosphere, there can be other explanations. Just because something is not fully understood it doesn't mean that you can make any claim.

"Each eclipse can exhibit oblateness variations due in the main to the conditions prevailing in the Earth's atmosphere at the time of the event, particularly when large volcanic eruptions have occurred before the observations are made. It's also possible that large amounts of dust in the troposphere caused by meteor showers could be a probable cause. However it also possible that another major factor effecting the change of the oblatness of the umbra from eclipse to eclipse is the hemisphere through which the Moon passes during the eclipse. " (Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Volume 95, Number 1, p.18)".
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984JBAA...95...16S

Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION

« on: October 07, 2019, 02:09:32 PM »

...
Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:
...
Make sure you understand the RUDERFER experiment, the most direct proof of the existence of ether:
...

Nevermind, I'm not interested in reading your theories about the allais effect or ether or the other links. Reading your posts is enough. I was the one asking, so I guess it's my fault.