Sun spots, and craters on the moon.

I'll admit this is a bad time for a sunspot thread, given that the sun has been sunspot free for a month and two days now, but some will crop up soon enough.

Sunspots on the sun make it's 25 day rotation period visibly apparent. In periods of heavy spotting, a full rotation of spots can be seen, even by amateurs with just box viewers and a lot of patience.

The continuity of the rotation shows that the spots are not just the random generation of directionally traveling phenomena on a flat emitter sun.

Secondly, the visible side of the moon has impact craters. With a flat moon that would be the bottom side, and even with a round moon, it's relative bottom side is still heavily impacted. How could a body like the moon get impact craters on it's bottom side?

Could it be that it's mass influenced other masses? Our flat earth is a sheep though, and the moon is a hen. That explains 100% why our earth's mass wouldn't influence other bodies. Right?

Secondly, the visible side of the moon has impact craters. With a flat moon that would be the bottom side, and even with a round moon, it's relative bottom side is still heavily impacted. How could a body like the moon get impact craters on it's bottom side?

Could it be that it's mass influenced other masses? Our flat earth is a sheep though, and the moon is a hen. That explains 100% why our earth's mass wouldn't influence other bodies. Right?

Maybe there are objects magically endlessly accelerating at more than 1g and for some reason, they come from the bottom - and through the 'flat' earth without hitting it and then hit the moon.  Oh and craters on the surface of the earth are from objects in our way that are magically accelerating sideways instead of up or down, thats why meteor showers come down at angles.  Or maybe they were dug out as part of a huge cover-up to hide the fact the Earth is flat and there is no such thing as an impact crater. 

LOL this fun, I should start pretending the Earth is flat, that the governments of the world actually cared enough about what people thought to cover up the fact that the Earth is flat and that I am really just a battery for giant machines and this is all a simulation.

I'll admit this is a bad time for a sunspot thread, given that the sun has been sunspot free for a month and two days now, but some will crop up soon enough.

Sunspots on the sun make it's 25 day rotation period visibly apparent. In periods of heavy spotting, a full rotation of spots can be seen, even by amateurs with just box viewers and a lot of patience.

The continuity of the rotation shows that the spots are not just the random generation of directionally traveling phenomena on a flat emitter sun.

Secondly, the visible side of the moon has impact craters. With a flat moon that would be the bottom side, and even with a round moon, it's relative bottom side is still heavily impacted. How could a body like the moon get impact craters on it's bottom side?

Could it be that it's mass influenced other masses? Our flat earth is a sheep though, and the moon is a hen. That explains 100% why our earth's mass wouldn't influence other bodies. Right?

Once again, a post that asked questions for which there is no explanation in FE theory.

Secondly, the visible side of the moon has impact craters. With a flat moon that would be the bottom side, and even with a round moon, it's relative bottom side is still heavily impacted. How could a body like the moon get impact craters on it's bottom side?

How do you know that they're "impact" craters? Maybe they're naturally occurring phenomena more like the Grand Canyon.

I believe their opinion is that craters are merely surface textures. Not terrain changes.

Regardless of the ability of moderately powerful telescopes to resolve the crests and troughs on the edge of the moon.

No erosion on the moon, hence no natural terrain features

I believe their opinion is that craters are merely surface textures. Not terrain changes.

Hmm, kind of like mold on cheese I guess.

What is the difference between "texture" and "terrain changes"?

Texture like those wrapped around 3d models on computers. Just an image.

Texture like those wrapped around 3d models on computers. Just an image.

Ah, I was thinking old school.  Something like the texture of sandpaper (rough), suede (soft), or other real thing.  On that basis, texture would have been the same as terrain.

I'll admit this is a bad time for a sunspot thread, given that the sun has been sunspot free for a month and two days now, but some will crop up soon enough.

Sunspots on the sun make it's 25 day rotation period visibly apparent. In periods of heavy spotting, a full rotation of spots can be seen, even by amateurs with just box viewers and a lot of patience.

The continuity of the rotation shows that the spots are not just the random generation of directionally traveling phenomena on a flat emitter sun.

Secondly, the visible side of the moon has impact craters. With a flat moon that would be the bottom side, and even with a round moon, it's relative bottom side is still heavily impacted. How could a body like the moon get impact craters on it's bottom side?

Could it be that it's mass influenced other masses? Our flat earth is a sheep though, and the moon is a hen. That explains 100% why our earth's mass wouldn't influence other bodies. Right?

Still no FE response or rebuttal?

it's odd... it's like they've all disappeared.

Anyway... I have a guess as to what their response would be, but I'd really rather hear it from the "horses mouth" so to speak.
 

Texture like those wrapped around 3d models on computers. Just an image.

They can be seen to cast shadows at certain times. So if they're just textures, I must insist on Shader Model 3 and some pretty decent normal mapping. Possibly even parallax occlusion mapping.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 09, 2008, 07:37:37 AM

Secondly, the visible side of the moon has impact craters. With a flat moon that would be the bottom side, and even with a round moon, it's relative bottom side is still heavily impacted. How could a body like the moon get impact craters on it's bottom side?

How do you know that they're "impact" craters? Maybe they're naturally occurring phenomena more like the Grand Canyon.

The Grand Canyon is forming by water erosion. Can you list any naturally occurring phenomena you feel could cause craters? I can only think of one; meteor(ite)/comet impact.

Also dozens of meteor impacts on the moon are visible during the many meteor showers every year, Perseid and Leonid most prominently. I personally have seen 3; 2 during the Perseids, and one lucky one during the Geminids.

I believe their opinion is that craters are merely surface textures. Not terrain changes. Regardless of the ability of moderately powerful telescopes to resolve the crests and troughs on the edge of the moon.

A process that is made much easier by the motions of lunar libration.

Because of lunar libration we are capable of seeing 59% of the moons surface, and at different angles. Like you say, you can clearly see the crests and troughs.

Quote from: dyno on September 09, 2008, 08:32:12 PM

Texture like those wrapped around 3d models on computers. Just an image.

They can be seen to cast shadows at certain times. So if they're just textures, I must insist on Shader Model 3 and some pretty decent normal mapping. Possibly even parallax occlusion mapping.

If they are of the opinion that it's all just stage dressing, or an elaborate hologram, they should take it to the mad revisionist's site. It's more suited for that kind of theorizing. Besides, if it were all stage dressing, then who dressed the stage?

it's odd... it's like they've all disappeared.

Anyway... I have a guess as to what their response would be, but I'd really rather hear it from the "horses mouth" so to speak.
 

I wonder where everyone is.

For starters ... any body that looks at the sun is going to see spots .... thats a fact

next I would say that ... you said there was one peice of evidence for craters .."meteorites,comets...

thats 2 ... I can boil it down to one if you want ... "Rocks"

does that fit the description?

My theory on what happened is ... When they used to have those catapults (dark ages)

they flung alot of rocks at the moon , because they over engineered it back then.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5469/cratersiq8.jpg
The Grand Canyon is forming by water erosion. Can you list any naturally occurring phenomena you feel could cause craters? I can only think of one; meteor(ite)/comet impact.

In my opinion the craters on the moon were caused by impacts. At one point in its life the moon faced away from the earth towards space.

so there was no visible moon in the past? 

    In all the years the earth has been around, we know the moon has shown only one face to the earth, how?

You don't really...It just seems like there would have been writings or cave drawings of a moon that suddenly went dark for a long period of time....Seeing that the earth isn't that old in FE....one would think that the Bible would have made mention of it.

so there was no visible moon in the past? 

No. At one point before civilization the moon's face we see was pointed towards space. That's how it got its impact scars.

The face we see turned around to fact the earth due to prolonged uneven meteor collisions or some other mechanism.

Quote from: Stabler12 on September 14, 2008, 01:47:49 AM

so there was no visible moon in the past? 

No. At one point before civilization the moon's face we see was pointed towards space. That's how it got its impact scars.

The face we see turned around to fact the earth due to prolonged uneven meteor collisions or some other mechanism.

First off, can you show any kind of proof of that, or are you talking out your arse?

Second off,

Also dozens of meteor impacts on the moon are visible during the many meteor showers every year, Perseid and Leonid most prominently. I personally have seen 3; 2 during the Perseids, and one lucky one during the Geminids.

How are bodies continuing to hit the bottom side of the moon then? There was a heavy hit ratio late last month, and a 3 hit within an hour combo was noted by not only Nasa and related space agencies, but by freelance astronomers all along the western hemisphere. I'll find the vid clip.

Why should I trust you Tom, and not people who share my own interest, and actually know a thing or two about them?

In my opinion the craters on the moon were caused by impacts. At one point in its life the moon faced away from the earth towards space.

Well, at least they are finally admitting that there are craters on the Moon.

First off, can you show any kind of proof of that, or are you talking out your arse?

If you want proof that the face of the moon has impact scars look up at the moon on any night.

How are bodies continuing to hit the bottom side of the moon then? There was a heavy hit ratio late last month, and a 3 hit within an hour combo was noted by not only Nasa and related space agencies, but by freelance astronomers all along the western hemisphere. I'll find the vid clip.

Why should I trust you Tom, and not people who share my own interest, and actually know a thing or two about them?

Some bodies still hit the moon's face, sure. If a meteor hits the moon from the side it can hit the moon's visible face.

Quote

First off, can you show any kind of proof of that, or are you talking out your arse?

If you want proof that the face of the moon has impact scars look up at the moon on any night.

Quote

How are bodies continuing to hit the bottom side of the moon then? There was a heavy hit ratio late last month, and a 3 hit within an hour combo was noted by not only Nasa and related space agencies, but by freelance astronomers all along the western hemisphere. I'll find the vid clip.

Why should I trust you Tom, and not people who share my own interest, and actually know a thing or two about them?

Some bodies still hit the moon's face, sure. If a meteor hits the moon from the side it can hit the moon's visible face.

If the FE and all of the celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8m/s², then how can a meteor hit the moon from the side?  Shouldn't the meteor be accelerating at 9.8m/s² too?  Or is the UA selective in what it accelerates in a given direction?

If the FE and all of the celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8m/s², then how can a meteor hit the moon from the side?  Shouldn't the meteor be accelerating at 9.8m/s² too?  Or is the UA selective in what it accelerates in a given direction?

Meteors can move side to side because there is some sort of magnetic or gravometric attraction in the heavens which causes bodies to move horizontally. Stars move horizontally across the skies. The sun moves horizontally across the sky over the course of a day. Meteors and comets move horizontally across the sky as well.

Quote

If the FE and all of the celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8m/s², then how can a meteor hit the moon from the side?  Shouldn't the meteor be accelerating at 9.8m/s² too?  Or is the UA selective in what it accelerates in a given direction?

Meteors can move side to side because there is some sort of magnetic or gravometric attraction in the heavens which causes bodies to move horizontally. Stars move horizontally across the skies. The sun moves horizontally across the sky over the course of a day. Meteors and comets move horizontally across the sky as well.

Now if only there were a way to model this odd behavior of the various celestial bodies.  Hmm...  I've got it, orbital mechanics.  Oh wait, that doesn't work in FET. 

Now if only there were a way to model this odd behavior of the various celestial bodies.  Hmm...  I've got it, orbital mechanics.  Oh wait, that doesn't work in FET.

The ancients could model and predict the movement of celestial bodies just fine under Flat Earth cosmologies.

Quote

Now if only there were a way to model this odd behavior of the various celestial bodies.  Hmm...  I've got it, orbital mechanics.  Oh wait, that doesn't work in FET.

The ancients could model and predict the movement of celestial bodies just fine under Flat Earth cosmologies.

So, when they spotted a comet for the first time, they were able to predict when it would return?

So, when they spotted a comet for the first time, they were able to predict when it would return?

No. It takes several coordinated observations to predict the path and occurrence of celestial phenomena.

Quote

So, when they spotted a comet for the first time, they were able to predict when it would return?

No. It takes several coordinated observations to predict the path and occurrence of celestial phenomena.

So you agree that RE is better at predicting the path and reoccurrence of previously unknown celestial phenomena with fewer observations.  Glad to hear it.