Why does the moon "bend away" in case it is a disk/cylinder?

I've got a telescope of my own (only 60 mm, so I'm not boasting) which I used to look at the moon. Please observe that I used the "moon filter" - so you can't blame my conclusions on my sight being crippled.

The moon does seem to bend away, exactly as it would if it was a sphere. I guess bendy light can't explain that, since the moon's atmosphere is too thin. Also, the shadows work exactly as they would on a spherical body, with short or no shadows at the place where the sun is almost directly shining on the moon, and long shadows at the edge of the observable moon.

The moon is a sphere. Please read ENAG.

I referred to the FAQ. It said that the moon was a spotlight or a gigantic mirror. Either update the FAQ or explain to me what "ENAG" is, so that I can use it as a source of information in the future.

Also, as some of you have said on these forums, the moon may be the cause why we have tides. Wouldn't the earth be (only slightly) pulled towards the moon as well due to the moon having gravitation and the earth not having gravitation?

ENAG = Earth Not a Globe

And Gravitational force from the moon would be greater on the water if the Earth does not have a gravitational pull.

i wonder if the moon?s gravitational pull (if there is any) could influence earth if earth does not excert any gravitational pull

The shape of celestial objects varies depending on the point being discussed. The FAQ also disagrees on almost every point with the current FEers. I don't know why people keep getting told to read it, as it has little to do with the points normally discussed on the board.

I don't know why people keep getting told to read it, as it has little to do with the points normally discussed on the board.

That's why I only direct people to it if they did bring up a point discussed in it.  There are still a lot of people who ask how it's possible to circumnavigate the earth, for example, and the explanation for that has not changed in 150 years of FET.

Someone said that the moon and the earth were different.

I do not think so, since we know that the earth is composed of so-called atoms, in case you flat-earthers have heard of them. The moon is made of matter (unless, of course, it does only exist in our minds) - atoms, as well as the earth. How come that the moon, being made of matter, has gravitation and the earth does not?
Do not give me that "there is a difference between snakes and other legged animals" - it is not relevant. All animals are still made of organic material and most animals have a way of moving themselves. Snakes as well. The legs are just details, in other words, unimportant. Just like the fact that there are rivers on Earth, but not on the moon.

That's why I only direct people to it if they did bring up a point discussed in it.  There are still a lot of people who ask how it's possible to circumnavigate the earth, for example, and the explanation for that has not changed in 150 years of FET.

I don't know, it gets referred to even when the FAQ does disagree with current FES thought.  There isn't a single mention of "bendy light" anywhere in the FAQ, but that seems to be a strongly supported theory at the moment.  It is probably time for the FAQ to be revisited and brought into line with the current FES beliefs so at least everyone is on the same page.

If the moon is a sphere and the sun is above it, how do we actually see a full moon? The sun would never actually fully shine on the moon's underbelly (the bit we can see), all we'd ever see is the edge of the moon facing the sun.

If the moon is a sphere and the sun is above it, how do we actually see a full moon? The sun would never actually fully shine on the moon's underbelly (the bit we can see), all we'd ever see is the edge of the moon facing the sun.

You're not taking bendy light into account.

How does bendy light work?

How does bendy light work?

It bends up in a parabolic arc with concavity 1.57 * 10^-7 m^-1.

You're not taking bendy light into account.

Can you explain how "bendy light" would allow the Sun to fully light the bottom of a sphere located below it?  And if "bendy light" can do that, how that reflected light can then reach an observer far below both light sources?

Quote from: The Terror on November 18, 2008, 02:54:18 AM

How does bendy light work?

It bends up in a parabolic arc with concavity 1.57 * 10^-7 m^-1.

Bendy light on the moon does not work. The moon has a thin atmosphere and cannot bend light. In case you are talking about light being bent by gravity, then the light on earth would be bent by gravity as well. If there is gravity on earth, then earth cannot be a disc.

Also, you have failed to answer my question. The moon is made of matter (atoms), and the earth as well. Matter on the moon has gravity. How come that matter on earth does not?

Can you explain how "bendy light" would allow the Sun to fully light the bottom of a sphere located below it?  And if "bendy light" can do that, how that reflected light can then reach an observer far below both light sources?

Sunlight that does not reach the Earth gets bent in a big U-shape, and when the Moon is far away from the Sun it gets lit up by this light. Some of this light will, of course, be bent back away from us, but that which reflects at an angle significantly closer to vertical than its incident angle will not be bent enough to prevent it from reaching the Earth.

Bendy light on the moon does not work. The moon has a thin atmosphere and cannot bend light. In case you are talking about light being bent by gravity, then the light on earth would be bent by gravity as well. If there is gravity on earth, then earth cannot be a disc.

Light is bent by Dark Energy.

Also, you have failed to answer my question. The moon is made of matter (atoms), and the earth as well. Matter on the moon has gravity. How come that matter on earth does not?

Matter itself does not have gravity. It does not make sense to speak of something as "having gravity".

Dark energy IS NOT bending light.

Dark energy is the force that is expanding the universe. Not the force that is known to bend light. Yet again, light bending is caused by gravity. Check "black holes" and "neutron stars" if you want to know how to bend light. These celestial objects can cause light to severely bend and twist, because of their gravitation.

An expansion would not cause light to bend that way which you suggest. It would cause objects to move away from each other - unless - there was gravity holding them together.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050322_dark_energy.html

Sunlight that does not reach the Earth gets bent in a big U-shape, and when the Moon is far away from the Sun it gets lit up by this light. Some of this light will, of course, be bent back away from us, but that which reflects at an angle significantly closer to vertical than its incident angle will not be bent enough to prevent it from reaching the Earth.

Sorry the geometry doesn't work.  The same light that is bent back to vertical to hit the bottom of the Moon because it "missed the Earth" would miss the Earth after being reflected.

Quote from: The Terror on November 18, 2008, 02:54:18 AM

How does bendy light work?

It bends up in a parabolic arc with concavity 1.57 * 10^-7 m^-1.

I could be wrong, but that doesn't look like a unit of concavity to me.  Looks more like the slope of a very shallow angle.

Once again just for those in the cheap seats. Light doesn't bend as required by FE'ers. And I'd love to see where you pulled that 1.57 * 10-7 m-1 from.

I am guessing that it matches the curve of the surface of the Earth since that is what they are trying to model with "bendy light."

Maybe the moon is drawing light onto itself at certain angles - and the angles perfectly match how the moon would work in case the earth was a sphere? Some things said by these flat-earthers increase the probability of a spherical earth. The map that was published recently was actually better as a spherical-earth map than a flat-earth map.

Any way the flat-earthers can explain how this "not-dark-energy-but-we-call-it-dark-energy-since-it-sounds-scientific" works? I am quite interested at this point.

A puzzled, Earthquakes don't bend.

Not a flat Earther, but my current understanding of FE model dark energy is some unknown force accelerating the planet, Sun, Moon stars and other celestial objects up at 1g, but not us or anything on the planet's surface.

I think the flat Earth model has reached the point where even if the planet was flat, the round Earth model would still be considered better as it's so much simpler. the FE model is drowning in unknown forces and undetectable objects, making it insanely complex.

Don't forget the "cospiracy". Things are getting so out of hand that the flat earth model seems to be more complex than the machinery of the apollo 11.

Not a flat Earther, but my current understanding of FE model dark energy is some unknown force accelerating the planet, Sun, Moon stars and other celestial objects up at 1g, but not us or anything on the planet's surface.

I think the flat Earth model has reached the point where even if the planet was flat, the round Earth model would still be considered better as it's so much simpler. the FE model is drowning in unknown forces and undetectable objects, making it insanely complex.

The unknown force accelerating the FE is no more complex than the unknown and undiscovered subatomic particle which is supposed to be keeping us attached to the RE.

Quote from: NTheGreat on November 18, 2008, 10:07:33 AM

Not a flat Earther, but my current understanding of FE model dark energy is some unknown force accelerating the planet, Sun, Moon stars and other celestial objects up at 1g, but not us or anything on the planet's surface.

I think the flat Earth model has reached the point where even if the planet was flat, the round Earth model would still be considered better as it's so much simpler. the FE model is drowning in unknown forces and undetectable objects, making it insanely complex.

The unknown force accelerating the FE is no more complex than the unknown and undiscovered subatomic particle which is supposed to be keeping us attached to the RE.

Actually the FE's UA would be much more complex than RE's gravitation.  The UA must accelerate the body of the FE and the celestial bodies above but not objects on the surface of the FE.  Additionally, the UA must be able to precisely balance the the acceleration of the celestial bodies against any gravitational influence between those celestial bodies and the FE.  If you subscribe to the sub-heavens theory (anti-sun and anti-moon to explain tides), then the UA must also be able to balance the acceleration of those sub-heavens with the the acceleration of the FE while keeping the any gravitational influence between the sub-heavens and the FE from causing the sub-heavens from crashing into the bottom of the FE.

In RE, gravitation only needs to be able to attract mass/energy in a predictable manner (which is does quite nicely).

Also worth of mention is that FE also needs it's own unknown and undiscovered subatomic particle to explain why thing such as the moons of Jupiter orbit it and binary stars stay together, on top of the FE model dark energy

Quote from: The Terror on November 18, 2008, 02:54:18 AM

How does bendy light work?

It bends up in a parabolic arc with concavity 1.57 * 10^-7 m^-1.

I see.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2008, 02:52:15 PM

Quote from: NTheGreat on November 18, 2008, 10:07:33 AM

Not a flat Earther, but my current understanding of FE model dark energy is some unknown force accelerating the planet, Sun, Moon stars and other celestial objects up at 1g, but not us or anything on the planet's surface.

I think the flat Earth model has reached the point where even if the planet was flat, the round Earth model would still be considered better as it's so much simpler. the FE model is drowning in unknown forces and undetectable objects, making it insanely complex.

The unknown force accelerating the FE is no more complex than the unknown and undiscovered subatomic particle which is supposed to be keeping us attached to the RE.

Actually the FE's UA would be much more complex than RE's gravitation.  The UA must accelerate the body of the FE and the celestial bodies above but not objects on the surface of the FE.  Additionally, the UA must be able to precisely balance the the acceleration of the celestial bodies against any gravitational influence between those celestial bodies and the FE.  If you subscribe to the sub-heavens theory (anti-sun and anti-moon to explain tides), then the UA must also be able to balance the acceleration of those sub-heavens with the the acceleration of the FE while keeping the any gravitational influence between the sub-heavens and the FE from causing the sub-heavens from crashing into the bottom of the FE.

In RE, gravitation only needs to be able to attract mass/energy in a predictable manner (which is does quite nicely).

Not only that, but the reasons for the Anti Moon is to explain the tides, so FE either need Gravity, or needs another unknown force that acts the same as gravity (yes there are detectable "Land" tides that are caused by the Moon in the same way that the normal tides are caused). In other words, FE needs gravity and it needs to have exactly the same effect as in RE.

But if FE has gravity, we come back to the problem of why the Earth doesn't have gravity and yet these other objects do (Moon and Anti-Moon) and yet they are made up of the same stuff?

It is a catch 22: For FE to work there has to be no such force as to produce the effects of gravity. However, for FE to work there has to be a force that produces the effects of gravity. 

Dark energy IS NOT bending light.

Dark energy is the force that is expanding the universe. Not the force that is known to bend light. Yet again, light bending is caused by gravity. Check "black holes" and "neutron stars" if you want to know how to bend light. These celestial objects can cause light to severely bend and twist, because of their gravitation.

An expansion would not cause light to bend that way which you suggest. It would cause objects to move away from each other - unless - there was gravity holding them together.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050322_dark_energy.html

FE Dark Energy is different from RE Dark Energy. They both refer to natural forces of unknown nature, albeit different forces in different models of the Universe.

Sorry the geometry doesn't work.  The same light that is bent back to vertical to hit the bottom of the Moon because it "missed the Earth" would miss the Earth after being reflected.

The Moon is not a retroreflector.

I could be wrong, but that doesn't look like a unit of concavity to me.  Looks more like the slope of a very shallow angle.

I agree. You are wrong.

Once again just for those in the cheap seats. Light doesn't bend as required by FE'ers.

Prove it.

And I'd love to see where you pulled that 1.57 * 10-7 m-1 from.

It's the inverse of the radius of the Earth in RET, which is necessary for nobody to notice any difference between RET and FET+EA over short (less than a few thousand kilometres) distances.

The Moon is not a retroreflector.

Even if the Moon isn't a perfect reflector, the geometry doesn't allow light reaching the Moon to be reflected back to a viewer on Earth.

Once again just for those in the cheap seats. Light doesn't bend as required by FE'ers.

Prove it.[/quote]



An interferometer doesn't show any bending of light down to accuracies of nanometers.  Since "bendy light" requires much more significant bending than this, there is evidence that light isn't bent in the manner required.

It's the inverse of the radius of the Earth in RET, which is necessary for nobody to notice any difference between RET and FET+EA over short (less than a few thousand kilometres) distances.

See told you he just used the formula for the curvature of the Earth rather than some sort of data to derive it.  Of course, the fact that experiments about the nature of light show that it doesn't bend to that extent would make it impossible to derive that equation from an observation of light.