Antimoon?

Obviously the antimoon is a spherical body, since the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and only a sphere produces a round shadow in any direction. I have a few other questions:

1. Does the antimoon lie on the same plane as the moon's orbit?
2. How is the antimoon positioned on the line of nodes from the sun to the moon?
3. Why can't we observe the antimoon during a lunar eclipse?
4. What does the antimoon orbit?

Obviously the antimoon is a spherical body, since the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and only a sphere produces a round shadow in any direction. I have a few other questions:

1. Does the antimoon lie on the same plane as the moon's orbit?
2. How is the antimoon positioned on the line of nodes from the sun to the moon?
3. Why can't we observe the antimoon during a lunar eclipse?
4. What does the antimoon orbit?

1. It would be slightly lower, I'd assume. I'm not 100% sure.
3. You only observe it during a lunar eclipse.
4. An offset "orbit" of the moon that would cause them to be in the same place at the same time, causing a lunar eclipse.

i'm sorry that was my bad i meant to say:

Why can't we observe the antimoon during times other than an eclipse?

Also, if the moon and antimoon were in the same place at the same time, wouldn't they collide?

See 1. Slightly lower

And you can't observe it because I assume it only filters cold light from the moon, and isn't in front of the moon other times.

In order for the eclipse to occur, all the celestial bodies would need to be on the same plane. Assuming they are, I'm going to try to run through a list of scenarios.

RET:

Solar eclipse: Sun ----> Moon ----> Earth
Lunar eclipse: Sun ----> Earth ----> Moon

FET: lunar

Sun ----> Antimoon ----> Moon
Moon ----> Antimoon ----> Earth

is the antimoon between the sun and moon or the earth and moon?

Okay, let me MS paint you a diagram, give me a minute



The green rectangle labeled "Da ERF" is a side view of the flat earth. The three rectangles above represent the sun, moon, and antimoon. The sun is the red rectangle, the moon is the gray one, and the black is the anti moon. When the antimoon moves beneath the moon, it's a lunar eclipse. It does not have a regular, circular "orbit".

SupahLovah, you're in Pittsburgh? Me too! I go to Pitt. Are you in school out here or just live here?

I live near town and work in town, and I'm going to be going to pitt soon.

that's cool, i like it out here a lot.

btw, in the FAQ it says this:

Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"

A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.

So wouldnt the black and gray rectangles be switched?

IDK, I don't like the FAQ.

haha me neither but all the FEers are always yellin to "check the FAQ!"

Obviously the antimoon is a spherical body, since the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and only a sphere produces a round shadow in any direction. I have a few other questions:

1. Does the antimoon lie on the same plane as the moon's orbit?
2. How is the antimoon positioned on the line of nodes from the sun to the moon?
3. Why can't we observe the antimoon during a lunar eclipse?
4. What does the antimoon orbit?

The Antimoon is not a spherical body, I believe it is flat.

The Antimoon lies slightly below the Moon's locus. The Moon does not orbit.

The line of nodes? As far as I understand, the meaningful existence of this imaginary line is a contingency of the theory that the Moon orbits around a Round Earth. If not, please clarify.

We can observe the Antimoon during a Lunar eclipse. It's the big dark thing moving in front of the Moon.

The Antimoon doesn't orbit anything. The concept of orbit is made up, it doesn't actually happen, gravity is not real.

We can observe the Antimoon during a Lunar eclipse. It's the big dark thing moving in front of the Moon.

Last time I checked, that was just Earths shadow.

Prove me wrong.

Quote from: facehead on January 11, 2010, 10:46:25 AM

Obviously the antimoon is a spherical body, since the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and only a sphere produces a round shadow in any direction. I have a few other questions:

1. Does the antimoon lie on the same plane as the moon's orbit?
2. How is the antimoon positioned on the line of nodes from the sun to the moon?
3. Why can't we observe the antimoon during a lunar eclipse?
4. What does the antimoon orbit?

The Antimoon is not a spherical body, I believe it is flat.

The Antimoon lies slightly below the Moon's locus. The Moon does not orbit.

The line of nodes? As far as I understand, the meaningful existence of this imaginary line is a contingency of the theory that the Moon orbits around a Round Earth. If not, please clarify.

We can observe the Antimoon during a Lunar eclipse. It's the big dark thing moving in front of the Moon.

The Antimoon doesn't orbit anything. The concept of orbit is made up, it doesn't actually happen, gravity is not real.

I'd be interested to know why during a lunar eclipse, one can still observe stars next to the moon in the area that should be covered by the antimoon? Just a thought...

Quote from: James on January 11, 2010, 02:13:20 PM

Quote from: facehead on January 11, 2010, 10:46:25 AM

Obviously the antimoon is a spherical body, since the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and only a sphere produces a round shadow in any direction. I have a few other questions:

1. Does the antimoon lie on the same plane as the moon's orbit?
2. How is the antimoon positioned on the line of nodes from the sun to the moon?
3. Why can't we observe the antimoon during a lunar eclipse?
4. What does the antimoon orbit?

The Antimoon is not a spherical body, I believe it is flat.

The Antimoon lies slightly below the Moon's locus. The Moon does not orbit.

The line of nodes? As far as I understand, the meaningful existence of this imaginary line is a contingency of the theory that the Moon orbits around a Round Earth. If not, please clarify.

We can observe the Antimoon during a Lunar eclipse. It's the big dark thing moving in front of the Moon.

The Antimoon doesn't orbit anything. The concept of orbit is made up, it doesn't actually happen, gravity is not real.

I'd be interested to know why during a lunar eclipse, one can still observe stars next to the moon in the area that should be covered by the antimoon? Just a thought...

It filters the cold light from the moon, so the stars aren't blocked by it.

I'd be interested to know why during a lunar eclipse, one can still observe stars next to the moon in the area that should be covered by the antimoon? Just a thought...

It filters the cold light from the moon, so the stars aren't blocked by it.
[/quote]

The Moon doesn't emit "cold light". If you think that, then you don't understand the nature of light, thermal radiation or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Anyway, didn't you used to be a RE'er?

Oh, I still am, I just like talking crazy.

Quote from: facehead on January 11, 2010, 10:46:25 AM

Obviously the antimoon is a spherical body, since the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and only a sphere produces a round shadow in any direction. I have a few other questions:

1. Does the antimoon lie on the same plane as the moon's orbit?
2. How is the antimoon positioned on the line of nodes from the sun to the moon?
3. Why can't we observe the antimoon during a lunar eclipse?
4. What does the antimoon orbit?

The Antimoon is not a spherical body, I believe it is flat.

The Antimoon lies slightly below the Moon's locus. The Moon does not orbit.

The line of nodes? As far as I understand, the meaningful existence of this imaginary line is a contingency of the theory that the Moon orbits around a Round Earth. If not, please clarify.

We can observe the Antimoon during a Lunar eclipse. It's the big dark thing moving in front of the Moon.

The Antimoon doesn't orbit anything. The concept of orbit is made up, it doesn't actually happen, gravity is not real.

Where are your experiments and results?

Are you powered by the same bot that runs Bishop?

The Moon doesn't emit "cold light". If you think that, then you don't understand the nature of light, thermal radiation or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Anyway, didn't you used to be a RE'er?

Actually, it does, and this has been proved several times by scientific experiment, by many different, unbiased parties.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 11, 2010, 05:19:01 PM

The Moon doesn't emit "cold light". If you think that, then you don't understand the nature of light, thermal radiation or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Anyway, didn't you used to be a RE'er?

Actually, it does, and this has been proved several times by scientific experiment, by many different, unbiased parties.

Link to said proof please.

Quote from: James on January 13, 2010, 06:08:25 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 11, 2010, 05:19:01 PM

The Moon doesn't emit "cold light". If you think that, then you don't understand the nature of light, thermal radiation or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Anyway, didn't you used to be a RE'er?

Actually, it does, and this has been proved several times by scientific experiment, by many different, unbiased parties.

Link to said proof please.

You also need to provide links to the many different, unbiased parties.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 11, 2010, 05:19:01 PM

The Moon doesn't emit "cold light". If you think that, then you don't understand the nature of light, thermal radiation or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Anyway, didn't you used to be a RE'er?

Actually, it does, and this has been proved several times by scientific experiment, by many different, unbiased parties.

Not only do I think you are telling lies here (and no matter how much you claim otherwise, you're not going to provide links to documentation of these experiments, are you?) but also the ability to see the moon's image on a thermal camera demonstrates conclusively that these experiments you cite were wrong. The moon casts thermal radiation.

Quote from: James on January 13, 2010, 06:08:25 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 11, 2010, 05:19:01 PM

The Moon doesn't emit "cold light". If you think that, then you don't understand the nature of light, thermal radiation or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Anyway, didn't you used to be a RE'er?

Actually, it does, and this has been proved several times by scientific experiment, by many different, unbiased parties.

Not only do I think you are telling lies here (and no matter how much you claim otherwise, you're not going to provide links to documentation of these experiments, are you?) but also the ability to see the moon's image on a thermal camera demonstrates conclusively that these experiments you cite were wrong. The moon casts thermal radiation.

Odds are that it will be this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0

Also light produces heat when it hits stuff. And also, almost every piece of matter emits infrared radiation. So light cannot be cold, its always accompanied by IR waves.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 13, 2010, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: James on January 13, 2010, 06:08:25 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 11, 2010, 05:19:01 PM

The Moon doesn't emit "cold light". If you think that, then you don't understand the nature of light, thermal radiation or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Anyway, didn't you used to be a RE'er?

Actually, it does, and this has been proved several times by scientific experiment, by many different, unbiased parties.

Not only do I think you are telling lies here (and no matter how much you claim otherwise, you're not going to provide links to documentation of these experiments, are you?) but also the ability to see the moon's image on a thermal camera demonstrates conclusively that these experiments you cite were wrong. The moon casts thermal radiation.

Odds are that it will be this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0

Yes, an object lesson in how to draw wrong conclusions from experiments, and how not to do them properly. The one with the rattlesnakes is not even using real moonlight but simulated. We have no data on the accuracy of this simulation. The experiment is merely to monitor their activity levels and is unable to distinguish between biological effects of snakes with no light at all and snakes under simulated moonlight. Itchy's method of drawing conclusions from this is almost of the level of "I saw a pink tank kill my friend. Therefore all pink things are dangerous." In other words, he is assuming the simulated moonlight is the cause of one single effect, when it could be other factors causing it.
The study on himself is laughable. You've heard of blind trials? This is the exact opposite of that as Itchy is both the experimenter and the subject. He is biased. The measurements he takes even have no intrinsic meaning in terms of health benefit or detriment.
And yet none of it explains the presence of the moon as a thermal image.

Yes, an object lesson in how to draw wrong conclusions from experiments, and how not to do them properly. The one with the rattlesnakes is not even using real moonlight but simulated. We have no data on the accuracy of this simulation. The experiment is merely to monitor their activity levels and is unable to distinguish between biological effects of snakes with no light at all and snakes under simulated moonlight. Itchy's method of drawing conclusions from this is almost of the level of "I saw a pink tank kill my friend. Therefore all pink things are dangerous." In other words, he is assuming the simulated moonlight is the cause of one single effect, when it could be other factors causing it.
The study on himself is laughable. You've heard of blind trials? This is the exact opposite of that as Itchy is both the experimenter and the subject. He is biased. The measurements he takes even have no intrinsic meaning in terms of health benefit or detriment.
And yet none of it explains the presence of the moon as a thermal image.

Not only biased, but completely aware of when the reading was taking place.  The mere fact of taking one's own blood pressure and thinking of the result could influence the readings based on anticipation.