The Problem with Eclipses

Okay, Penguin, I'll leave alone lunar eclipses right now since I can't seem to convince you that the power of prediction pretty much means that RE'es are right. Ignoring that, let's bring up something else I brought up in my initial post. All of the time, we see the same side of the moon, however, because the speed at which the moon is orbiting doesn't quite equal the rate that we're spinning at to meet it, there are some variances in this.

These are called librations. It is only a slight variance, however, it does allow us to see a bit of what is called the "dark side of the moon". Now, if the moon was flat as FE'ers profess, how come the moon does not become oblong when it librates. After all, if you turn a circle a little bit away from you, it appears to become more elliptical in shape. How do you explain this?

If you have never noticed this before, there is a picture in one of Ubuntu's posts on page twelve that has a sped up rendition of the moon waxing and waning. You can see the moon "wobble" a little bit in this short movie. That is because it is librating. However, during the entire "film", the moon stays a sphere. How do you explain this?

Okay, Penguin, I'll leave alone lunar eclipses right now since I can't seem to convince you that the power of prediction pretty much means that RE'es are right.

He's basically admitted as much in this thread.

Penguin, I asked you a question. You could at least do me the decency of saying you wish not to comment or that you know not the answer. At least provide some semblance of an answer. Thank you.

Penguin, I asked you a question. You could at least do me the decency of saying you wish not to comment or that you know not the answer. At least provide some semblance of an answer. Thank you.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to ask your question to a flat Earther, since I've never understood why the FE theory says the sun and moon are flat in the first place.

Okay then, anyone else wish to explain libration with a flat moon to me, or is this thread just going to be ignored forever.

Lunar eclipse is due to the light from the suns reflecting off the surface of the earth onto the flat moon. This is possible due to diffusion in the atmosphere which alters the direction of the light away from the spotlight direction. Lunar eclipses look slightly different due to land reflecting more/less than water. Obviously this is only a small amount of light thus the long exposure times on the images in the first post. Colours are caused by angle at which the moon is to the sun relative to the earth.
ie:

sun...........moon
...\............/
.....\......../
.......\.A./
.........\/

A = angle.
If this angle is big, red eclipse is caused, if small, slightly blue as seen in the left image of the moon. This is only a shit small amount of light proved by the long exposure times on the camera (1.2 secs etc).
As for the libration i have no idea...CONSPIRASY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT: didnt read all the posts -_- this argument has already been made

I don't mean to be annoying, but I really would like to hear an explanation on libration from a true FE'er. Dogplatter, Dionysius, Erasmus, or any other FE'ers I didn't mention that have even some semblance of an idea, I would like to hear it.

umm wow, just wow, they will come eventually... Dionysios aparently doesn't post out of FEB, Dogplatter has been gone a while, and yeaaa

If the earth is flat, lunar eclipses are not caused by Earth being between the sun and the moon, since this can't happen in the flat Earth model.
Since lunar eclipses must be caused by some other mechanism, the shadow on the moon is not Earth's shadow, and thus is not indicative of Earth's shape.

This is ridiculous, completely unscientific, and circular reasoning.

As for the FE explanation, it doesn't explain the predictability of lunar eclipses, nor does it explain the fact that eclipses are not viewed by all areas exposed to the sun/moon. I.E. Texas will be experiencing a normal, humdrum, hot as fuck summer day, while waaay south, in the same time zone, will be experiencing an eclipse.

If anybody noticed that I was gone, it was because the login for this site isn't compatible with Firefox.

If anybody noticed that I was gone, it was because the login for this site isn't compatible with Firefox.

It's fine for me in Firefox.

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

If anybody noticed that I was gone, it was because the login for this site isn't compatible with Firefox.

It's fine for me in Firefox.

Yeah, it's working now... and maybe it wasn't a Firefox problem... but for the past few weeks it wasn't. It was weird. Daniel was very helpfull, and even he experienced the problem once or twice when trying to login for me.

Anyhoo... FE needs a better explanation for Eclipses, and it's sad that this thread is mostly "whatever, just move on and ask something else" instead of people actually taking the challenge and trying to use their brains!

That's part of the purpose of this site. Intelligent debate and counter-science. I'm seeing apathy and non-science.

I'm seeing apathy and non-science.

Amen to that!

I contend that the lunar eclipses are not a result of the earth blocking rays that radiate from the sun, but rather, that it is a periodic distruption in the light that emanates from the moon itself. Something like the filament of a light flickering for a moment, albeit, a fairly long moment.

ok.

lets take a look at the sun.. done looking? ok i'll give you a few more minutes...

notice the lack of any shadows or landscape... that is becuase the sun IS a source of light in itself...

now take a look at the moon...

craters, shadows, mountains...

how the hell can a light source have shadows on itself, IF light is travelling from the source (moon) then we would not see the shadows, they would appear only if the light source was pointed AT it ... like hmm.. i wonder.. maybe THE SUN.

edit:wrong quote

While I'm still working on the exact mechanisms of the third satellite, which I have named the Lire*, I would like to point out one, quite simple thing you fail to realize about us FE'ers:

Until 1492, everyone assumed the world was flat.  Then, Columbus discovered the "Indies."  Then, Magellan sailed "around" the "globe."  Since those times, just about every scientist has gone along with the belief that the world is round.  Therefore, every time they make a "discovery," the only way they test it is through the RE theory.

FE'ers don't have these scientists - we're trying to explain it for ourselves.  RE'ers can simply go onto the net, type in "explanation lunar eclipse" to google.com, and copy and paste the response onto this forum with the heading, "LIEK OMG UNDENIABLE PROOF."  And so far, you've given us thirty days with the matter.  Thirty days.  That's ridiculous.

Here's an example for you: I believe it was Galileo who first viewed the world as nothing special, thinking that it orbited around the sun.  When he brought this out into the public, everyone, including political leaders and the Catholic church said, "Uh-uh.  No way man.  You're definitely wrong."  Mind you, he'd worked on this theory himself for a good decade or so.  Then, people thought about how it worked for about half a century, only to decide that Galileo's theory was a bit better than the current one.

And what's the moral of the story, you might ask?  People had a century to think proof over.  You've given us thirty days.  I think you owe us a good 49 years, three hundred and thirty four days, give or take some, until you DEMAND an answer.

*I've also thought about calling it the Phoomp, because that just sounds invisible to me.  Any other ideas?

I realize this thread is a little old, particularly this post, but aside from the obvious contradictions to your post made by Ubuntu (here), you're neglecting one thing.

You claim that RE'ers have had 2000 years to explain eclipses, and you only had 30 days at the point in this thread.  However, you forget that people have "known" the earth was flat, LONG before two thousand years ago.  You've had since the beginning of time to come up with a plausible explaination for eclipses, yet still can't.  2000 years is nothing in comparison to the at least 20,000 years that thinking humans have roamed the earth.  The round earth.

I think this qualifies as definitive proof that the Earth is round.

Unbuntu wrote:

I think this qualifies as definitive proof that the Earth is round.




Indeed it does. 8-)

Unbuntu wrote:


Indeed it does. 8-)

Right on.  8-)

Quote from: "Yardstick2006"

Unbuntu wrote:


Indeed it does. 8-)

Right on.  8-)

Right on indeed.

Further FE pwnage:

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

Something has to come up eventually.

Something has to come up eventually.

Hm?

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Something has to come up eventually.

Hm?

I mean a reply/answer/rebuttal.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Something has to come up eventually.

Hm?

I mean a reply/answer/rebuttal.

I wouldn't hold your breath for something satisfactory.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Quote from: "flat_brain_theory"

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Quote from: "flat_brain_theory"

Quote from: "Aralith"

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

This topic is "yet to be answered."

Bump'd.

x2

 bumpity bumpski  :wink:

the earth could just be a flat...but round object, like a plate...

doesn't this completely ruin every argument stated in the previous posts? about the circular shadow cast on the moon by the earth?

course, ur ideas do completely disband the fiction that the sun and moon are both beacons, both above the earth, as if this was the case there would not be a possibility for a lunar eclipse to occer, as both would be above the earth, therefore the earth could not get inbetween

So far, no FE has given a satisfactory explaination of eclipses.

We are still waiting, FEers.

ok

Shut up.

Well that makes 3  I guess.

So as this is a time passer for all you guys and you all believe that the earth is round and it is just a mater weather you will admit it or not. I thought I would let you know what is happening around the earth and not in theory, in reality.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5944615355863607664

You flat-earth's always say that if you haven't seen it with your owns eyes, then it probably isn't how it is. So in theory there is no third world debt, no poverty, no racism, no ozone-layer depletion and no ice caps melting. This goes back the the age old argument that if a tree falls over in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound?

For more information about this visit http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/ this is there current campaign, they have a wide agenda and I'm sure you will find one that you will be able to help out with what ever your theory.