The Anti-Moon...

Quote from: Dino on December 23, 2009, 10:12:53 PM

Quote from: Sutekh on December 23, 2009, 09:27:42 PM

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 23, 2009, 12:58:35 PM

Quote from: Dino on December 23, 2009, 12:47:20 PM

Perhaps the anti-moon normally exists on the dark side of the moon and follows it's path like a twin.

Well that's certainly possible...

No it isin't. Nasa can predict esclipes for decades into the future using the round earth model.

Or they somehow know when the antimoon is going to poke it's head out? and the antimoon pokes its head out in a way exactly in agreement with the round earth model's predictions?

surely thats beyond any possibility of being true.

There are many consiliences in nature. Is it merely a huge coincidence that the theory of gravity and relativity both come very close to describing the same phenomenon but from different perspectives? RE model's predictions are just a consilience with the FE model. Thus the ongoing confusion and debate.    

nasa has been in space, it's not a case of I wonder which theory is true, we've been in space, right now there is an international space station look down at a rotating round earth. It's like saying, I wonder if france exists. yes it does.

What makes you think nasa has been in space? You obviously don't know anything about geopolitics or how the economy works.

Now, you're going to disagree with this; say it's all a "conspiracy", but:

I think that we have been in space because of lots of evidence towards it. Whole books have been written about men in space, it has appeared on television, we have photographs, people who have told us that they have been in space, etc, etc. And if all these astronauts have been lying, and they've never gone anywhere, then please tell me why all of them have agreed to keep it a secret. Because I doubt that all of them would do it for money.

Now, you're going to disagree with this; say it's all a "conspiracy", but:

I think that we have been in space because of lots of evidence towards it. Whole books have been written about men in space, it has appeared on television, we have photographs, people who have told us that they have been in space, etc, etc. And if all these astronauts have been lying, and they've never gone anywhere, then please tell me why all of them have agreed to keep it a secret. Because I doubt that all of them would do it for money.

Even I would do it for the money.

Depends how much they'd give you. But I'd think that maybe somebody would tell everyone that NASA was all a hoax and go on talk shows and stuff and make lots of money that way. Plus, it would be more interesting and you'd be famous.

Depends how much they'd give you. But I'd think that maybe somebody would tell everyone that NASA was all a hoax and go on talk shows and stuff and make lots of money that way. Plus, it would be more interesting and you'd be famous.

You'd merely be called a lunatic flat earther. Or perhaps die mysteriously. Or be arrested on attempted murder charges after losing your mind, putting on a diaper, and driving from texas to florida in fear of your life, so scared of what is chasing you that you wont even allow yourself a single piss break.

Quote from: Nimbus on December 24, 2009, 06:02:18 PM

Now, you're going to disagree with this; say it's all a "conspiracy", but:

I think that we have been in space because of lots of evidence towards it. Whole books have been written about men in space, it has appeared on television, we have photographs, people who have told us that they have been in space, etc, etc. And if all these astronauts have been lying, and they've never gone anywhere, then please tell me why all of them have agreed to keep it a secret. Because I doubt that all of them would do it for money.

Even I would do it for the money.

Yet, nobody that's been a part of keeping the shape of the world a secret has said anything on their deathbed...not one. Most conspiracies "work" one way or another by some witness or member of the conspiracy coming forward and revealing what they know to the world. 

Quote from: Dino on December 24, 2009, 06:49:56 PM

Quote from: Nimbus on December 24, 2009, 06:02:18 PM

Now, you're going to disagree with this; say it's all a "conspiracy", but:

I think that we have been in space because of lots of evidence towards it. Whole books have been written about men in space, it has appeared on television, we have photographs, people who have told us that they have been in space, etc, etc. And if all these astronauts have been lying, and they've never gone anywhere, then please tell me why all of them have agreed to keep it a secret. Because I doubt that all of them would do it for money.

Even I would do it for the money.

Yet, nobody that's been a part of keeping the shape of the world a secret has said anything on their deathbed...not one. Most conspiracies "work" one way or another by some witness or member of the conspiracy coming forward and revealing what they know to the world. 

Because it is a conspiracy of dunces, not a conspiracy of people who know the truth. The fact is that RE theory comes very close to describing reality and thus it is compelling. But the theory of gravity comes very close to describing reality also and is therefore also compelling, yet most REers will admit that gravity theory is wrong. There is no such thing as gravity. Einstein's theory contradicts it. REers perpetuate the conspiracy not by keeping secrets, but by believing in things that resemble the truth but are not.

Quote from: The Swede on December 24, 2009, 09:26:55 PM

Quote from: Dino on December 24, 2009, 06:49:56 PM

Quote from: Nimbus on December 24, 2009, 06:02:18 PM

Now, you're going to disagree with this; say it's all a "conspiracy", but:

I think that we have been in space because of lots of evidence towards it. Whole books have been written about men in space, it has appeared on television, we have photographs, people who have told us that they have been in space, etc, etc. And if all these astronauts have been lying, and they've never gone anywhere, then please tell me why all of them have agreed to keep it a secret. Because I doubt that all of them would do it for money.

Even I would do it for the money.

Yet, nobody that's been a part of keeping the shape of the world a secret has said anything on their deathbed...not one. Most conspiracies "work" one way or another by some witness or member of the conspiracy coming forward and revealing what they know to the world. 

Because it is a conspiracy of dunces, not a conspiracy of people who know the truth. The fact is that RE theory comes very close to describing reality and thus it is compelling. But the theory of gravity comes very close to describing reality also and is therefore also compelling, yet most REers will admit that gravity theory is wrong. There is no such thing as gravity. Einstein's theory contradicts it. REers perpetuate the conspiracy not by keeping secrets, but by believing in things that resemble the truth but are not.

Hey Dino, please tell me what the anti-moon is doing in this video:

Hey Dino, please tell me what the anti-moon is doing in this video:

I'm not Dino, but I think I just might be able to help you out here.

It's moving in front of the Moon.

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 25, 2009, 06:53:39 AM

Hey Dino, please tell me what the anti-moon is doing in this video:

I'm not Dino, but I think I just might be able to help you out here.

It's moving in front of the Moon.

What is th anti-moon made out of? Why is it transparent around the edges? Maybe because it's a shadow of the eart?

Quote from: James on December 25, 2009, 04:36:04 PM

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 25, 2009, 06:53:39 AM

Hey Dino, please tell me what the anti-moon is doing in this video:

I'm not Dino, but I think I just might be able to help you out here.

It's moving in front of the Moon.

What is th anti-moon made out of? Why is it transparent around the edges? Maybe because it's a shadow of the eart?

The anti-moon is made out of anti-cheese.

I admire the RE'ers conviction in this forum to play by scientific rules, even though their opposition does not.  Its virtually impossible to argue with someone when you are bounded by logic and they are not.

I have a counter-conspiracy theory though, get ready, here it comes:

James, a moderator here at the forums, is actually an RE'er posing as a troll!

My evidence:

1.) He uses poor science to advance claims that only seem to exist to rebuke information based on whoever he's talking to
2.) Based on responses, James says whatever he can to cause an emotional response from RE'ers.
3.) The suggestions of going outside to look for nothing (by his own definition, a lack of stars), is an obvious joke he's trying to play.
4.) He seems to have no interest in actually proving points, just making them.


The only problem here is that I will probably be banned by him for pointing this out, thus proving my point entirely when you don't here from me anymore.  Before I get the lifetime ban, however, please consider the fact, James, that my conspiracy theory no less valid than yours is.

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 25, 2009, 06:53:39 AM

Hey Dino, please tell me what the anti-moon is doing in this video:

I'm not Dino, but I think I just might be able to help you out here.

It's moving in front of the Moon.

I've seen several lunar eclipses. Why is the anti moon translucent?

Quote from: James on December 25, 2009, 04:36:04 PM

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 25, 2009, 06:53:39 AM

Hey Dino, please tell me what the anti-moon is doing in this video:

I'm not Dino, but I think I just might be able to help you out here.

It's moving in front of the Moon.

What is th anti-moon made out of? Why is it transparent around the edges? Maybe because it's a shadow of the eart?

Not having been to the Antimoon, I can't be certain. I would suggest it may be made out of some igneous rock given its terrestrial origin, probably obsidian. If you take a relatively thin sample of obsidian and move it in front of a desk lamp, you will observe similar translucency effect.

I have a counter-conspiracy theory though, get ready, here it comes:

James, a moderator here at the forums, is actually an RE'er posing as a troll!

My evidence:

1.) He uses poor science to advance claims that only seem to exist to rebuke information based on whoever he's talking to
2.) Based on responses, James says whatever he can to cause an emotional response from RE'ers.
3.) The suggestions of going outside to look for nothing (by his own definition, a lack of stars), is an obvious joke he's trying to play.
4.) He seems to have no interest in actually proving points, just making them.


The only problem here is that I will probably be banned by him for pointing this out, thus proving my point entirely when you don't here from me anymore.  Before I get the lifetime ban, however, please consider the fact, James, that my conspiracy theory no less valid than yours is.

Why would I ban you for this joke of a post? It's pure speculation, all four of your points are based on your subjective opinion of my responses, and it's so clearly inaccurate as to be laughable. I am one of the major 21st Century proponents of Flat Earth theory, I have had extensive media exposure http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7540427.stm , why would I be so dedicated to something I didn't believe? What would be the point? It's like claiming that Professor Robert Winston doesn't believe in evolution. Ok sure, he might not, but then why would he write books about it?

Not having been to the Antimoon, I can't be certain. I would suggest it may be made out of some igneous rock given its terrestrial origin, probably obsidian. If you take a relatively thin sample of obsidian and move it in front of a desk lamp, you will observe similar translucency effect.

Why does its translucency vary? Some eclipses are much darker than others. They should all look the same if the antimoon exists.

Quote from: James on December 28, 2009, 05:13:24 AM

Not having been to the Antimoon, I can't be certain. I would suggest it may be made out of some igneous rock given its terrestrial origin, probably obsidian. If you take a relatively thin sample of obsidian and move it in front of a desk lamp, you will observe similar translucency effect.

Why does its translucency vary? Some eclipses are much darker than others. They should all look the same if the antimoon exists.

Depends what time of day it is. Remember, the Sun is above the Antimoon too. The amount of net light in the atmolayer is obviously going to affect something like Antimoon translucency, just as if I were to perform the obsidian-in-front-of-desklamp experiment outside on a sunny day, versus inside at night.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 28, 2009, 05:41:29 AM

Quote from: James on December 28, 2009, 05:13:24 AM

Not having been to the Antimoon, I can't be certain. I would suggest it may be made out of some igneous rock given its terrestrial origin, probably obsidian. If you take a relatively thin sample of obsidian and move it in front of a desk lamp, you will observe similar translucency effect.

Why does its translucency vary? Some eclipses are much darker than others. They should all look the same if the antimoon exists.

Depends what time of day it is. Remember, the Sun is above the Antimoon too. The amount of net light in the atmolayer is obviously going to affect something like Antimoon translucency, just as if I were to perform the obsidian-in-front-of-desklamp experiment outside on a sunny day, versus inside at night.

Cannot be a correct explanation because it would depend on where in the world you were viewing the lunar eclipse from - somewhere the sun had only set two hours previously would see the moon looking a different brightness compared to somewhere the sun had set five hours before. Yet that does not happen.

What I did in my experiment was to kill a plant by exposing it to moonlight. There is a subtle, but crucial difference. If by "regurgitating nonsense" you mean "citing previous scientific literature" then yes, I did a bit of that.


And finally, if you can think of another reason sailors aren't permitted to sleep on deck, despite the fact that I've provided historical evidence that this was the rationale behind these ordinances, then I'm all ears.

(1) Well it happens I also deprived of whiskey, though you wouldn't say it died for want of whiskey would you? (If you would, I pity you). And yes, there are plants which do manage to eke out an existence despite the horrid effects of moonlight, but most of these have evolved defense mechanisms (why do you think daisys close up at night) OR are adversely affected (see Lardner's study on German lumber, quoted in my longer writing on this subject in FEB).

Let see... reasons why sailors slept in the ship and why plants die when only exposed to moonlight.

The reason why sailors slept in there ship instead on the deck should be fairly obvious. They are sailing. Meaning, they are on the ocean. Its a bit hard to sleep when it there is water splashing all over you. It is hard to sleep if there is a wind chill that is freezing you. The sailors slept inside because if they didn't, they'd get no sleep. Except right before they die from hypothermia perhaps.

The plant died from no sunlight, well, because plants need sunlight to drive their photosynthesis to survive.

Daisies along with other plants close up during the night to conserve heat during the night when it is colder.

Pretty common sense explanations.

Do tell me this experiment of exposing plants to moonlight. Also why are sailors not allowed to sleep on the deck?

Many quite recent astronomers have acknowledged the Antimoon, it's mostly globular fundamentalists who keep quiet about it, but there have been globularists even who admit it exists, because well, how can you NOT?

This is one of the most outrageous claims you have made yet.  You can't name a single astronomer, recent or otherwise, who has acknowledged the Antimoon, nor name any globularist who admits it exists.  You are clearly lying!

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 06:44:16 PM

Many quite recent astronomers have acknowledged the Antimoon, it's mostly globular fundamentalists who keep quiet about it, but there have been globularists even who admit it exists, because well, how can you NOT?

This is one of the most outrageous claims you have made yet.  You can't name a single astronomer, recent or otherwise, who has acknowledged the Antimoon, nor name any globularist who admits it exists.  You are clearly lying!

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on December 30, 2009, 12:51:38 AM

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 06:44:16 PM

Many quite recent astronomers have acknowledged the Antimoon, it's mostly globular fundamentalists who keep quiet about it, but there have been globularists even who admit it exists, because well, how can you NOT?

This is one of the most outrageous claims you have made yet.  You can't name a single astronomer, recent or otherwise, who has acknowledged the Antimoon, nor name any globularist who admits it exists.  You are clearly lying!

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

Quite recent, James. You said, "Quite recent" and you also implied there was more than one.

Quote from: James on December 30, 2009, 02:26:51 AM

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on December 30, 2009, 12:51:38 AM

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 06:44:16 PM

Many quite recent astronomers have acknowledged the Antimoon, it's mostly globular fundamentalists who keep quiet about it, but there have been globularists even who admit it exists, because well, how can you NOT?

This is one of the most outrageous claims you have made yet.  You can't name a single astronomer, recent or otherwise, who has acknowledged the Antimoon, nor name any globularist who admits it exists.  You are clearly lying!

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

Quite recent, James. You said, "Quite recent" and you also implied there was more than one.

In fairness, the post James was replying to did say "recent or otherwise".  So it is a relevant answer, even if the bloke died in 1871.
And who's to say he wasn't referring to small moons he couldn't see but just thought existed.  Similar things have happened before...  When designing the present periodic table people left spaces for elements they thought should exist but hadn't been found yet.

EDIT:  I never thought I'd see the day I'd defend something James has said...

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

I have beside me, as I type this, an original 1835 copy of Herschel's Astronomy. You have taken his comment out of context, Herschel is referring to undiscovered bodies beyond the earth and moon, NOT any sort of "antimoon". Herschel is quite clear on how he thinks eclipses happen - namely, the shadow of the earth on the moon.

You show how lame and cheap you really are by using this sort of misquote.

Quote from: James on December 30, 2009, 02:26:51 AM

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

I have beside me, as I type this, an original 1835 copy of Herschel's Astronomy. You have taken his comment out of context, Herschel is referring to undiscovered bodies beyond the earth and moon, NOT any sort of "antimoon". Herschel is quite clear on how he thinks eclipses happen - namely, the shadow of the earth on the moon.

You show how lame and cheap you really are by using this sort of misquote.

I don't consider it a misquote - I know what Herschel thought of eclipses, I presented him as a globularist scientist, which is what he was, since the interlocuter requested a recent mainstream globular scientist.

I consider a dark moon to be the very epitome of an Antimoon, and that is just the sort of thing Herschel was referring to - a Moon not illuminated by the Sun's light (little did he know that no Moon is illuminated by the Sun's light).

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 30, 2009, 06:36:14 AM

Quote from: James on December 30, 2009, 02:26:51 AM

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

I have beside me, as I type this, an original 1835 copy of Herschel's Astronomy. You have taken his comment out of context, Herschel is referring to undiscovered bodies beyond the earth and moon, NOT any sort of "antimoon". Herschel is quite clear on how he thinks eclipses happen - namely, the shadow of the earth on the moon.

You show how lame and cheap you really are by using this sort of misquote.

I don't consider it a misquote - I know what Herschel thought of eclipses, I presented him as a globularist scientist, which is what he was, since the interlocuter requested a recent mainstream globular scientist.

I consider a dark moon to be the very epitome of an Antimoon, and that is just the sort of thing Herschel was referring to - a Moon not illuminated by the Sun's light (little did he know that no Moon is illuminated by the Sun's light).

Yeah James, did you miss the bit that says I have Herschel's whole original book here on my desk? If you don't believe me I can post a picture (which you could gleefully claim was faked). Herschel had no belief in an antimoon or any other large sized body in close proximity to the earth. I realise there is no point in trying to present the truth to you (shall I get you some earplugs to go with your blindfold?) but I want to make it clear for the more rational readership of the forum.
Who do we believe, guys? The two times recipient of the Royal Astronomical Society's Gold Medal, the French Institute's Lalande Medal and the son of the discoverer of Uranus, or James with his... achievements?

NB James - I know you are a big fan of Lardner. Lardner was a big fan of Herschel and published some of his studies in his works.

Quote from: James on December 30, 2009, 10:42:36 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 30, 2009, 06:36:14 AM

Quote from: James on December 30, 2009, 02:26:51 AM

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

I have beside me, as I type this, an original 1835 copy of Herschel's Astronomy. You have taken his comment out of context, Herschel is referring to undiscovered bodies beyond the earth and moon, NOT any sort of "antimoon". Herschel is quite clear on how he thinks eclipses happen - namely, the shadow of the earth on the moon.

You show how lame and cheap you really are by using this sort of misquote.

I don't consider it a misquote - I know what Herschel thought of eclipses, I presented him as a globularist scientist, which is what he was, since the interlocuter requested a recent mainstream globular scientist.

I consider a dark moon to be the very epitome of an Antimoon, and that is just the sort of thing Herschel was referring to - a Moon not illuminated by the Sun's light (little did he know that no Moon is illuminated by the Sun's light).

Yeah James, did you miss the bit that says I have Herschel's whole original book here on my desk? If you don't believe me I can post a picture (which you could gleefully claim was faked). Herschel had no belief in an antimoon or any other large sized body in close proximity to the earth. I realise there is no point in trying to present the truth to you (shall I get you some earplugs to go with your blindfold?) but I want to make it clear for the more rational readership of the forum.
Who do we believe, guys? The two times recipient of the Royal Astronomical Society's Gold Medal, the French Institute's Lalande Medal and the son of the discoverer of Uranus, or James with his... achievements?

NB James - I know you are a big fan of Lardner. Lardner was a big fan of Herschel and published some of his studies in his works.

I'm going to go with James. His credentials don't have the stink of conspiracy.

I'm going to go with James. His credentials don't have the stink of conspiracy.

You do realise James is probably facepalming on reading you are taking his side?

Quote from: Dino on December 30, 2009, 05:48:08 PM

I'm going to go with James. His credentials don't have the stink of conspiracy.

You do realise James is probably facepalming on reading you are taking his side?

Good. I hope he is. James believes in a lot of crazy shit. It was a choice of lesser evils.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 30, 2009, 06:36:14 AM

Quote from: James on December 30, 2009, 02:26:51 AM

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

I have beside me, as I type this, an original 1835 copy of Herschel's Astronomy. You have taken his comment out of context, Herschel is referring to undiscovered bodies beyond the earth and moon, NOT any sort of "antimoon". Herschel is quite clear on how he thinks eclipses happen - namely, the shadow of the earth on the moon.

You show how lame and cheap you really are by using this sort of misquote.

I don't consider it a misquote - I know what Herschel thought of eclipses, I presented him as a globularist scientist, which is what he was, since the interlocuter requested a recent mainstream globular scientist.

I consider a dark moon to be the very epitome of an Antimoon, and that is just the sort of thing Herschel was referring to - a Moon not illuminated by the Sun's light (little did he know that no Moon is illuminated by the Sun's light).

The fact remains that Herschel did not believe in or suppport the idea of an "anti-moon" close to the earth of just the right size to give the illusion of the earth's shadow causing lunar eclipses, nor did he mean by "invisible moons" moons that are not or can not be illuminated by the sun's light.  He only meant that there are moons that have not yet been discovered or observed.  This is certainly still true.  We are still occasionally discovering moons not previously observed or visible to us as the instruments and techniques available to us for making such observations continue to improve.  In addition, it will certainly always remain true that there are moons of planets orbiting other stars that are unkown and therefore invisible to us.  This in no way gives any credence to the ridiculous FET notion of an "anti-moon."

Thus it remains crystal clear that you are a liar.