Several points....

I have brought this up many times before, and never gotten an answer. I have personally looked into my telescope, high-quality telescope, and seen several different planets. I can clearly see the curvature on them, especially Saturn and its rings. So supposedly all planets are flat? Wrong.

I have seen the moon VERY closely too, with my telescope. I can clearly see its curvature also. It's very obvious it's spherical. I may be wrong, but I believe part of the FE theory is that the moon is flat. That is obviously wrong.

Another thing, the ISS/space shuttles. I have seen the ISS many times in the sky, as well as a few space shuttles. Once my dad saw a shuttle in re-entry. Now, don't say "It's just a small light, that the government wants you to think is a shuttle!" If it was, I'd be able to see it a lot more, simply because it's actually in the earth's atmosphere, not in space, miles above me. So please explain this to me.

One last note. In the FE theory, the moon reflects light from the sun onto the earth, please correct me if I'm wrong. If this was so, the moon would be just as bright as the sun, so we'd never be able to look at it. Not at night, or when you can see it in the daytime (which you can, don't deny it ). Obviously, we can look at the moon whenever we feel like looking at it (assuming it's visible) so the moon CAN'T be a spotlight.

I haven't put a bunch of scientific crap thought into this, it's just simple stuff I thought up in two minutes. It's sad that I can disprove your theory so easily. Oh yeah! One more thing, there are a lot of websites that tell you when you can see the ISS, and, when a space shuttle has launched, when you can see it. So...are these more government conspiracists? Yeah, just thought I'd point that out. So please reasonably attempt to disprove these points. KBAI

I have brought this up many times before, and never gotten an answer. I have personally looked into my telescope, high-quality telescope, and seen several different planets. I can clearly see the curvature on them, especially Saturn and its rings. So supposedly all planets are flat? Wrong.

Planets are not flat in any theory.


[/quote]Another thing, the ISS/space shuttles. I have seen the ISS many times in the sky, as well as a few space shuttles. Once my dad saw a shuttle in re-entry. Now, don't say "It's just a small light, that the government wants you to think is a shuttle!" If it was, I'd be able to see it a lot more, simply because it's actually in the earth's atmosphere, not in space, miles above me. So please explain this to me.[/quote]

Space does exist.


[/quote]One last note. In the FE theory, the moon reflects light from the sun onto the earth, please correct me if I'm wrong. If this was so, the moon would be just as bright as the sun, so we'd never be able to look at it. Not at night, or when you can see it in the daytime (which you can, don't deny it ). Obviously, we can look at the moon whenever we feel like looking at it (assuming it's visible) so the moon CAN'T be a spotlight.[/quote]

The moon is not a spotlight.

One last note. In the FE theory, the moon reflects light from the sun onto the earth, please correct me if I'm wrong. If this was so, the moon would be just as bright as the sun, so we'd never be able to look at it. Not at night, or when you can see it in the daytime (which you can, don't deny it ). Obviously, we can look at the moon whenever we feel like looking at it (assuming it's visible) so the moon CAN'T be a spotlight.

You contradict yourself. The FE model DOES NOT state that the moon shines by reflected light. It does state that the moon is a spotlight. RE, on the other hand, does state that the moon's light is reflected sunlight, so by your logic, the moon would be as bright as the sun in the RE model. Of course it wouldn't be- only a small portion of the sun's light would ever reach the moon, and most of that wouldn't be reflected back out into space, so the moon would never be as bright as the sun.
But in FE the moon shines by its own generated light, not sunlight. In that case, there is no limit on the moon's brightness or lack thereof.

This FE theory seems to be like jello, every time you try to nail it down it moves.  In the discussion of "moon light" Franc is saying that the moon reflects light, not a spotlight (contrary to the FAQ)  So which is it?  Is it simply dependent on which argument you're trying to prove at the moment?

Quote from: Rossk #5!! on March 18, 2007, 09:25:50 PM

One last note. In the FE theory, the moon reflects light from the sun onto the earth, please correct me if I'm wrong. If this was so, the moon would be just as bright as the sun, so we'd never be able to look at it. Not at night, or when you can see it in the daytime (which you can, don't deny it ). Obviously, we can look at the moon whenever we feel like looking at it (assuming it's visible) so the moon CAN'T be a spotlight.

You contradict yourself. The FE model DOES NOT state that the moon shines by reflected light. It does state that the moon is a spotlight. RE, on the other hand, does state that the moon's light is reflected sunlight, so by your logic, the moon would be as bright as the sun in the RE model. Of course it wouldn't be- only a small portion of the sun's light would ever reach the moon, and most of that wouldn't be reflected back out into space, so the moon would never be as bright as the sun.
But in FE the moon shines by its own generated light, not sunlight. In that case, there is no limit on the moon's brightness or lack thereof.

The biggest problem with your bogus logic is the fact that the Moon is not a perfect mirror. The surface is covered in a grey dusty sand which, although has relatively good reflective properties, only reflects a percentage of the sunlight that is shone upon it.

I have set up an experiment to settle this argument.

Obtain a flat piece of cardboard, about two pounds of feta, something to suspend the feta from the ceiling (using the Force is optimal), and a flashlight.

Place the cardboard on the ground. Write "EARTH" in big, black letters on it so you don't forget what it represents. Ball up all the feta so that it is a rough sphere (lean towards ovoid for more accurate results). You may want to write "MOON" on this giant glob, but that'd ruin a LOT of really tasty cheese.

Make sure the room is dark. Suspend the Moon about the Earth. Shine the flashlight on the Moon. What do you seen?

Very little reflection! Feta reflects hardly any light at all, so both of your theories are obviously wrong.

I have set up an experiment to settle this argument.

Obtain a flat piece of cardboard, about two pounds of feta, something to suspend the feta from the ceiling (using the Force is optimal), and a flashlight.

Place the cardboard on the ground. Write "EARTH" in big, black letters on it so you don't forget what it represents. Ball up all the feta so that it is a rough sphere (lean towards ovoid for more accurate results). You may want to write "MOON" on this giant glob, but that'd ruin a LOT of really tasty cheese.

Make sure the room is dark. Suspend the Moon about the Earth. Shine the flashlight on the Moon. What do you seen?

Very little reflection! Feta reflects hardly any light at all, so both of your theories are obviously wrong.

People actually believe the moon is made of cheese??

Yeah, I'm fairly certain the moon is what we call "rock".  Rock tends to be a little mroe reflective than cheese, or maybe that's just my HS stupidity speaking....

I reckon Parmisan is pretty reflective and it is rock-like. Moon must be made of that.

Well, my LED lights here are quite reflective, as are my quarters, maybe that's what it's made of.  I don't see the point of putting things that in no way resemble the objects in question into an experiment that would only ruin any bit of reputation one has left.