Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.

Seriously?  Can you guys contradict yourselves any more?

Another question... would someone walking around the ice wall take the same amount (roughly) of time, as walking around the "North" Pole?  As it does in reality?  Or is this also your general cop out of "it's a conspiracy"?


More to come, as your logic is so obviously flawed.

 A simple search will show more than one theory for the lunar eclipse.   How does round earth defend the presense of the full moon and sun at the same time? Or the sun and lunar eclipse both visible at the same time? Could you get anymore insane?
Seriously?  Can you guys contradict yourselves any more?

Your north pole/ice wall argument doesn't really make sense to me. Could you define it better?

Also....

Governments that can not agree on religon, land ownership, even mudane things like which side of the road to drive on, are together on keeping everyone in the dark that the age old idea of the world being flat was, infact, correct?

And, most importantly, where the hell does Santa live, he couldn't survive with so little land!

Another question... would someone walking around the ice wall take the same amount (roughly) of time, as walking around the "North" Pole?  As it does in reality?

Have you done it?

Your north pole/ice wall argument doesn't really make sense to me. Could you define it better?

My point is, in my education, the North an South Poles were similar sizes, so walking the "coast" of either would (theoretically) take similar times.  On the FE model, the South Pole (aka the Ice wall), would take years to walk around the coast of, unlike the North Pole, which would take a few days.

Therefore proving the earth is or is not flat.

Quote from: Gresh on May 12, 2008, 02:01:34 PM

Another question... would someone walking around the ice wall take the same amount (roughly) of time, as walking around the "North" Pole?  As it does in reality?

Have you done it?

I am not in a position where I can disclose that at this moment in time, incase the FE'rs decide to "keep me quiet" or, indeed, the government see this.

I'd be in trouble one way or another!

In other words, "No."

Ok, no!

But... someone could, if it would constitute proof, one way or another.  Perhaps the Admin & Mods of this board should, then it would be people that are trusted.

So, I was asking the questions.... Feel free to answer without copping out.

In other words, "No."

Have you?

The Fe explanation of Lunar Eclipses/Phases are one the more amusing aspects of FE theory.  Especially when you think about how accurately the RE model predicts them.

The Fe explanation of Lunar Eclipses/Phases are one the more amusing aspects of FE theory.  Especially when you think about how accurately the RE model predicts them.

But the RE model doesn't predict the lunar eclipse beyond finding patterns in recurring charts and tables from historical records of previous eclipses. Aristotile, Ptolmy, and all the ancients could predict when the next eclipse would occur by finding the pattern of periods between the lunar eclipse. The same method is still used to this very day. Those very same equations to find the time, magnitude, and duration of the Lunar Eclipse are just as applicable to the FE model, or any model, of the earth.

See the Lunar Eclipse Chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thoms Winship

I notice that no-one is actually answering my questions.

Are there any Politicians here?

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 12, 2008, 02:16:58 PM

In other words, "No."

Have you?

Nope.

Quote from: Ski on May 12, 2008, 02:08:54 PM

Your north pole/ice wall argument doesn't really make sense to me. Could you define it better?

My point is, in my education, the North an South Poles were similar sizes, so walking the "coast" of either would (theoretically) take similar times.  On the FE model, the South Pole (aka the Ice wall), would take years to walk around the coast of, unlike the North Pole, which would take a few days.

Your education has failed you. The north and south pole (but geographic and magnetic) are very small points, not land masses with "coasts"

Ok, just so we are on an equal footing, and we can stop mixing words and actually try to answer a question directly....

My point is, the Arctic and Antarctic land masses were similar sizes, so walking the "coast" of either would (theoretically) take similar times.  On the FE model, the Antarctic (aka the Ice wall), would take years to walk around the coast of, unlike the Arctic, which would take a few days.

Now, if I wanted to argue about me grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. etc., I would have joined a "True English Forum", as I didn't, stop avoiding the questions and give answering them a go.

Unless, of course, you can't, in which case you can believe you're own hype and bullshit!

There is no "land mass" at the North Pole. It is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. These things aren't spelling errors. This isn't picking on your grammar. It is picking on your understanding of the "education" you say you have received.

And anyway, what is your point? Your proposed experiment would be far less conclusive than the photographs from space that FEers reject.

And anyway, what is your point? Your proposed experiment would be far less conclusive than the photographs from space that FEers reject.

i agree. such efforts are futile in taking down FE.

because we're right.

I'd like to point out there were many grammatical errors in his post, and I didn't even point them out. Remarkably restraint, I'd say.

Ok, just so we are on an equal footing, and we can stop mixing words and actually try to answer a question directly....

My point is, the Arctic and Antarctic land masses were similar sizes, so walking the "coast" of either would (theoretically) take similar times.  On the FE model, the Antarctic (aka the Ice wall), would take years to walk around the coast of, unlike the Arctic, which would take a few days.

Now, if I wanted to argue about me grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. etc., I would have joined a "True English Forum", as I didn't, stop avoiding the questions and give answering them a go.

Unless, of course, you can't, in which case you can believe you're own hype and bullshit!

Did you go to the same high school as me?

Go take a walk around the arctic coast.  You may want to bring a kayak.

Quote from: lindelof on May 12, 2008, 02:25:49 PM

The Fe explanation of Lunar Eclipses/Phases are one the more amusing aspects of FE theory.  Especially when you think about how accurately the RE model predicts them.

But the RE model doesn't predict the lunar eclipse beyond finding patterns in recurring charts and tables from historical records of previous eclipses. Aristotile, Ptolmy, and all the ancients could predict when the next eclipse would occur by finding the pattern of periods between the lunar eclipse. The same method is still used to this very day. Those very same equations to find the time, magnitude, and duration of the Lunar Eclipse are just as applicable to the FE model, or any model, of the earth.

See the Lunar Eclipse Chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thoms Winship

Just out of curiosity, can FE predict where an eclipse will occur?  That is, what parts of the world will see how much of the eclipse?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2008, 02:59:04 PM

Quote from: lindelof on May 12, 2008, 02:25:49 PM

The Fe explanation of Lunar Eclipses/Phases are one the more amusing aspects of FE theory.  Especially when you think about how accurately the RE model predicts them.

But the RE model doesn't predict the lunar eclipse beyond finding patterns in recurring charts and tables from historical records of previous eclipses. Aristotile, Ptolmy, and all the ancients could predict when the next eclipse would occur by finding the pattern of periods between the lunar eclipse. The same method is still used to this very day. Those very same equations to find the time, magnitude, and duration of the Lunar Eclipse are just as applicable to the FE model, or any model, of the earth.

See the Lunar Eclipse Chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thoms Winship

Just out of curiosity, can FE predict where an eclipse will occur?  That is, what parts of the world will see how much of the eclipse?

Yeah, by taking the place predicted by RE and making a theory it would fit in, sure.

I haven't heard you try to explain why a full moon can appear while the sun is up, or why a lunar eclipse may be observed while the sun is visible. I'd think evidence suggests that the lunar eclipse is evidence against the RE model.

I haven't heard you try to explain why a full moon can appear while the sun is up, or why a lunar eclipse may be observed while the sun is visible. I'd think evidence suggests that the lunar eclipse is evidence against the RE model.

The moon is full when the earth-moon-sun are almost (but not quite) in a straight line.  However, both the sun & moon could be visible as you can tell in my unbelievably accurate & totally to scale drawing of me seeing a full moon & the sun in the sky at the same time.  Someone can work out the geometry if they care enough.



Also; you pretty much can't see the sun during a lunar eclipse.  If you're going to say that you should at least have a photo or something.  Or an astronomical table that shows a lunar eclipse happening before sunset.

You'd agree then, that if a lunar eclipse were to occur when the sun was not set, that it wouldn't be compatible with RE theory?

Hell no.  We could say that there is a mysterious shadow object that caused eclipses before sunset.  If the Fe's are allowed to have massively ad hoc shit like that; we are too.  In actuality, it would be pretty weird.  But it wouldn't disprove a round earth I don't think.  There's just too much other evidence.

Lunar Eclipse w/ Sun!

OH SNAP!!!!

Also, what's the RE explanation for having this many moons in the sky at once?

Another victory for FE!

Just out of curiosity, can FE predict where an eclipse will occur?  That is, what parts of the world will see how much of the eclipse?

Yes, please refer to the equations in the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Lunar Eclipse w/ Sun!

OH SNAP!!!!

Uh, that's not a Lunar Eclipse.

I thought you would be happy that I proved your theory?

And it pretty much is a lunar eclipse.  You can tell because the moon looks red.  YOu can also always see the features of the moon.

Hell no.  We could say that there is a mysterious shadow object that caused eclipses before sunset.  If the Fe's are allowed to have massively ad hoc shit like that; we are too.  In actuality, it would be pretty weird.  But it wouldn't disprove a round earth I don't think.  There's just too much other evidence.

Ok, then. But it does happen, and it doesn't seem to fit in with the RE model. While you may adopt the "shadow object" (I personally don't believe in it), maybe we can stop presenting lunar eclipses as "proof" of the round earth.
I present to you the selenehelion.