Sun & Moon

  • 52 Replies
  • 8845 Views
Sun & Moon
« on: August 19, 2009, 10:11:41 AM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?

Also if the moon is also a spotlight, how are moon phases explained? eg when it is a half moon you can still see the other half not lit. Does this mean a bulb needs changing?

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2009, 10:27:41 AM »
1. Optical illusion.

2. Anti-moon.

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2009, 10:28:58 AM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?

Also if the moon is also a spotlight, how are moon phases explained? eg when it is a half moon you can still see the other half not lit. Does this mean a bulb needs changing?

You're not ganna get a real answer from these people.

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2009, 10:37:01 AM »
By real, are you speaking metaphysically?

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2009, 10:37:53 AM »
By real, I mean logical/rational/plausible and satisfactory.

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2009, 12:24:48 PM »
1. Optical illusion.

2. Anti-moon.


You got any real answers doc?

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2009, 11:35:45 PM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?

It is circular... flat and circular, and this is how it appears. If you look closely you can see a white cup-shaped outline behind it, so it really is a lot like a spotlight.

Quote
Also if the moon is also a spotlight, how are moon phases explained? eg when it is a half moon you can still see the other half not lit. Does this mean a bulb needs changing?

Same as in RET... it's created by shadows on the moon that make certain parts not visible.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

?

Fink

  • 205
  • Personal Sext
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2009, 11:40:29 PM »
you guys are noobs. the sun and the moon are OBVIOUSLY the same thing. Ever seen a 3-way light bulb? I swear half of you were born under a rock. A FLAT ROCK!
Earth is what?! Goes WHERE!?

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2009, 12:02:15 AM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?

It is circular... flat and circular, and this is how it appears. If you look closely you can see a white cup-shaped outline behind it, so it really is a lot like a spotlight.

Quote
Also if the moon is also a spotlight, how are moon phases explained? eg when it is a half moon you can still see the other half not lit. Does this mean a bulb needs changing?

Same as in RET... it's created by shadows on the moon that make certain parts not visible.


W,
 
You don't get this Flat Earth stuff do you?


Like I said. Any real answers?

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2009, 05:27:09 AM »
My answers were pretty clear.  Unless you have some legitimate proof...

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2009, 08:54:21 AM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?

It is circular... flat and circular, and this is how it appears. If you look closely you can see a white cup-shaped outline behind it, so it really is a lot like a spotlight.

Quote
Also if the moon is also a spotlight, how are moon phases explained? eg when it is a half moon you can still see the other half not lit. Does this mean a bulb needs changing?

Same as in RET... it's created by shadows on the moon that make certain parts not visible.


W,
 
You don't get this Flat Earth stuff do you?


Like I said. Any real answers?

your retarted
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2009, 09:01:09 AM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?

It is circular... flat and circular, and this is how it appears. If you look closely you can see a white cup-shaped outline behind it, so it really is a lot like a spotlight.


You fail. Lots.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 09:09:17 AM by d00gz »

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2009, 09:03:38 AM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?


You fail. Lots.

I do? How?
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2009, 09:08:36 AM »
Because you provided a useless answer.

And when questioned, you resorted to a childish insult.

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2009, 09:18:00 AM »
Because you provided a useless answer.

And when questioned, you resorted to a childish insult.

I provided an answer. I only insulted when insulted.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2009, 09:19:45 AM »
Well if it is flat and circular, then why is it, that when the sun is not directly overhead, it doesn't look eliptical?

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2009, 04:38:25 PM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?

It is circular... flat and circular, and this is how it appears. If you look closely you can see a white cup-shaped outline behind it, so it really is a lot like a spotlight.

Quote
Also if the moon is also a spotlight, how are moon phases explained? eg when it is a half moon you can still see the other half not lit. Does this mean a bulb needs changing?

Same as in RET... it's created by shadows on the moon that make certain parts not visible.


W,
 
You don't get this Flat Earth stuff do you?


Like I said. Any real answers?

your retarted


You don't even know the difference between a circle & an ellipse!

According to you, somehow a spotlight can have a shadow cast upon it that totally blacks it out!

You can't even deliver a simple two worded insult without grammatical & spelling errors!

Give it up champ!

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2009, 05:44:07 PM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

If the Sun is a flat disc spotlight, why does it appear as a circular shape, no matter where it is viewed from earth?

It is circular... flat and circular, and this is how it appears. If you look closely you can see a white cup-shaped outline behind it, so it really is a lot like a spotlight.

Quote
Also if the moon is also a spotlight, how are moon phases explained? eg when it is a half moon you can still see the other half not lit. Does this mean a bulb needs changing?

Same as in RET... it's created by shadows on the moon that make certain parts not visible.


W,
 
You don't get this Flat Earth stuff do you?


Like I said. Any real answers?

your retarted


You don't even know the difference between a circle & an ellipse!

According to you, somehow a spotlight can have a shadow cast upon it that totally blacks it out!

You can't even deliver a simple two worded insult without grammatical & spelling errors!

Give it up champ!
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2009, 05:02:44 AM »
So, Consider the spotlight an orb then.

"Spotlight" isn't referring to a cylndrical metal halogen bulb in the sky, it's referring to the stationary postion.


Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2009, 04:32:11 PM »
So, Consider the spotlight an orb then.

"Spotlight" isn't referring to a cylndrical metal halogen bulb in the sky, it's referring to the stationary postion.




Um yes, I do consider the sun an orb. Thank you for admitting that FE is a load of crap!

quote FAQ
"A2: In James McIntyre's model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs"

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2009, 04:49:30 PM »
So, Consider the spotlight an orb then.

"Spotlight" isn't referring to a cylndrical metal halogen bulb in the sky, it's referring to the stationary postion.




Um yes, I do consider the sun an orb. Thank you for admitting that FE is a load of crap!

quote FAQ
"A2: In James McIntyre's model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs"

Preco,
 
You don't get this Round Earth stuff do you?


Like I said. Any real questions?
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

*

ShnitzelKiller

  • 99
  • Everything not in front of your eyes doesn't exist
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2009, 11:08:11 PM »
1. Optical illusion.

2. Anti-moon.

... what.

Elaborate?

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2009, 01:16:20 AM »
So, Consider the spotlight an orb then.

"Spotlight" isn't referring to a cylndrical metal halogen bulb in the sky, it's referring to the stationary postion.




Um yes, I do consider the sun an orb. Thank you for admitting that FE is a load of crap!

quote FAQ
"A2: In James McIntyre's model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs"

Preco,
 
You don't get this Round Earth stuff do you?


Like I said. Any real questions?


Is this how the Flat Earth Society respond to any kind of tricky question, they send the rejects in to just babble?

I am very disappointed!

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2009, 06:45:17 AM »
Is this how the Flat Earth Society respond to any kind of tricky question, they send the rejects in to just babble?

I am very disappointed!

No, they also dismiss science as a logical fallacy.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2009, 06:46:07 AM »
Is this how the Flat Earth Society respond to any kind of tricky question, they send the rejects in to just babble?

I am very disappointed!

No, they also dismiss science as a logical fallacy.


This is not the case. Please do not misrepresent our beliefs; we will notice.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord


*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2009, 07:15:15 AM »
The problem is that you are defining something as 'science' which is not science. Peer review is not science. Scientists may use peer review, but that does not mean that peer review = science. Einstein's ideas were initially rejected by many other scientists, before being accepted. The rejection did not in any way reduce the validity of his work, nor did the acceptance increase it.


The point made in that thread is that the rejection of Rowbotham's work by most scientists does not in itself constitute proof against it. Nowhere in that thread does anyone say that 'science is a logical fallacy'.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2009, 07:30:31 AM »
The problem is that you are defining something as 'science' which is not science. Peer review is not science. Scientists may use peer review, but that does not mean that peer review = science. Einstein's ideas were initially rejected by many other scientists, before being accepted. The rejection did not in any way reduce the validity of his work, nor did the acceptance increase it.

I said that what becomes accepted is through peer review and testing further. I also said that Rowbotham violated a lot of the standards by making spurious claims. If all you took away from that was PEER REVIEW, you need to look again. However, if you are saying that I'm saying that things that aren't peer reviewed or passed a peer reviewed test isn't admissible science, then you are correct. If you thought I was going to outline the entire process from formulating the hypothesis to the creation of a law, you are grossly mistaken.

The rejection did, though, make Eistein's claim illegitimate. Until it is accepted, it is not really used in the scientific community save for a few scientists, whose credibility could be called into question by this virtue. Are you actually implying that I think phenomena stop simply because scientists have not fully described it or it hasn't been accepted?

Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2009, 08:17:07 AM »
Are you actually saying that the sun is an artifical (man made) spotlight in the sky?

We know how powerful the sun is, based on how much light and energy hits earth.

Even if it IS a spotlight in the sky, it's still EQUALLY powerful to a giant burning ball of hydrogen 1.4 million km in diameter.
If it's as close as you claim it is, it would destroy the earth. We would all be dead right now.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Sun & Moon
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2009, 09:00:15 AM »
We know how powerful the sun is, based on how much light and energy hits earth.

Even if it IS a spotlight in the sky, it's still EQUALLY powerful to a giant burning ball of hydrogen 1.4 million km in diameter.

Do you understand what the physical quantity power represents?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.