Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?

  • 133 Replies
  • 22734 Views
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2010, 05:44:19 AM »
But the point is that if you have an object that size, at that height above your surface, and attempt to have two people view it from the surface while separated by a large disance, they will both see a different part of the object. 

That is because the Moon is flat.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2010, 07:36:44 AM »
But the point is that if you have an object that size, at that height above your surface, and attempt to have two people view it from the surface while separated by a large disance, they will both see a different part of the object. 

That is because the Moon is flat.



Concede. And quit ignoring actual evidence.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2010, 10:28:46 AM »
The CGI artwork of an insane globularist fantasy will do nothing to convince me. That picture looks nothing like the Moon.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2010, 03:29:12 PM »
The CGI artwork of an insane globularist fantasy will do nothing to convince me. That picture looks nothing like the Moon.

OH MY GOSH! Schedule a visit to your local observatory and you can actually verify this yourself.

I'm pretty sure Flat Earthers are some of the worst Zetetics in the world.

Why wouldn't you want to know the truth, one way or the other??

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2010, 07:33:40 PM »
But the point is that if you have an object that size, at that height above your surface, and attempt to have two people view it from the surface while separated by a large disance, they will both see a different part of the object.  

You still haven't explained why this isn't an issue in RE.  I'm truly interested to know.
It isn't true in current accepted astronomy, because the distance between the two objects is so much greater.  I mean you're talking 238,857 miles away versus 3000 miles away.  When viewing an object, the further away it is, the angles of observation get closer to 90 degrees.  The closer to 90 degrees you get, the more similar the views of the object.  You see the point?

Right.

But you insisted that your little experiment would prove your point, despite the HUGE difference in scale there.

Great double talk.  
And it does.  See, if the object is close to the surface, than people on various sides of it will see something different.  If the moon in the FE model where as close to the surface as the Wiki claims it is, than everyone who looks at they each see a different side.  Since this does not happen in real life, than the object CANNOT be that close to the surface.  Shall I draw you a diagram?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2010, 07:55:10 PM »
But the point is that if you have an object that size, at that height above your surface, and attempt to have two people view it from the surface while separated by a large disance, they will both see a different part of the object.  

You still haven't explained why this isn't an issue in RE.  I'm truly interested to know.
It isn't true in current accepted astronomy, because the distance between the two objects is so much greater.  I mean you're talking 238,857 miles away versus 3000 miles away.  When viewing an object, the further away it is, the angles of observation get closer to 90 degrees.  The closer to 90 degrees you get, the more similar the views of the object.  You see the point?

Right.

But you insisted that your little experiment would prove your point, despite the HUGE difference in scale there.

Great double talk.  
And it does.  See, if the object is close to the surface, than people on various sides of it will see something different.  If the moon in the FE model where as close to the surface as the Wiki claims it is, than everyone who looks at they each see a different side.  Since this does not happen in real life, than the object CANNOT be that close to the surface.  Shall I draw you a diagram?

Yes, please draw a diagram that explains how your experiment proves your point.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2010, 08:13:05 PM »
And it does.  See, if the object is close to the surface, than people on various sides of it will see something different.  If the moon in the FE model where as close to the surface as the Wiki claims it is, than everyone who looks at they each see a different side.  Since this does not happen in real life, than the object CANNOT be that close to the surface.  Shall I draw you a diagram?

Yes, please draw a diagram that explains how your experiment proves your point.
Here you go.  The top picture represents the FE model.  Notice how the figures are viewing opposites sides of the moon?  Now, in the bottom picture shows that when you greatly increase the distance between the surface and the moon, the figures are now viewing almost the same section of the moon.  That better?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2010, 08:14:53 PM »
And it does.  See, if the object is close to the surface, than people on various sides of it will see something different.  If the moon in the FE model where as close to the surface as the Wiki claims it is, than everyone who looks at they each see a different side.  Since this does not happen in real life, than the object CANNOT be that close to the surface.  Shall I draw you a diagram?

Yes, please draw a diagram that explains how your experiment proves your point.
Here you go.  The top picture represents the FE model.  Notice how the figures are viewing opposites sides of the moon?  Now, in the bottom picture shows that when you greatly increase the distance between the surface and the moon, the figures are now viewing almost the same section of the moon.  That better?

Looks like different sections to me.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2010, 08:17:36 PM »
Ichimaru, they may be different, but they are much more similar. In the first, you will see a GREATER distance, in the latter, you will see a much more similar shape, different, and you WILL see a part they wont, but you will see the same general face.
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #39 on: April 28, 2010, 09:20:31 PM »
Because we are on a sphere, by the time you actually get to see a different face (that you would see in FET being a flat plane) you have gone past the horizon and the moon is now out of view.

We have a horizon in FE too.


Figure out why.

FE would create a horizon due to perspective, nothing from the sky would ever go underneath this horizon, they would shrink until they disappear.
The Sun and Moon do not change to sizes that would be observed due to a perspective horizon, they sink below the horizon.

Once you can come up with an appropriate reason that this is observed, I will be happy to even think FE has a leg to stand on.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #40 on: April 28, 2010, 10:12:04 PM »
Figure out why.

FE would create a horizon due to perspective, nothing from the sky would ever go underneath this horizon, they would shrink until they disappear.
The Sun and Moon do not change to sizes that would be observed due to a perspective horizon, they sink below the horizon.

Once you can come up with an appropriate reason that this is observed, I will be happy to even think FE has a leg to stand on.

This is a different argument entirely.  One can empirically observe that the moon sinks below the horizon so however it happens, we know it happens.

Obviously, I favor electromagnetic acceleration as the explanation for this phenomenon in FET.

And it does.  See, if the object is close to the surface, than people on various sides of it will see something different.  If the moon in the FE model where as close to the surface as the Wiki claims it is, than everyone who looks at they each see a different side.  Since this does not happen in real life, than the object CANNOT be that close to the surface.  Shall I draw you a diagram?

Yes, please draw a diagram that explains how your experiment proves your point.
Here you go.  The top picture represents the FE model.  Notice how the figures are viewing opposites sides of the moon?  Now, in the bottom picture shows that when you greatly increase the distance between the surface and the moon, the figures are now viewing almost the same section of the moon.  That better?


So you are saying now that your proposed experiment is entirely irrelevant?  I'm certainly glad I saved myself the time.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2010, 04:19:16 AM »
Figure out why.

FE would create a horizon due to perspective, nothing from the sky would ever go underneath this horizon, they would shrink until they disappear.
The Sun and Moon do not change to sizes that would be observed due to a perspective horizon, they sink below the horizon.

Once you can come up with an appropriate reason that this is observed, I will be happy to even think FE has a leg to stand on.

This is a different argument entirely.  One can empirically observe that the moon sinks below the horizon so however it happens, we know it happens.

Obviously, I favor electromagnetic acceleration as the explanation for this phenomenon in FET.


I favor the much easier to prove and less holey "The Earth Curves downwards away from you" explanation.

Pray tell, how is that bendy light/EA equation/model coming along?
Does it have anything other than blatant "Lol it does this because it does"



Using the basic premise of EA, the moon would decelerate to it's peak position, then accelerate back down to the horizon.

Last time I checked, it has a constant speed.


Pics if needed.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 04:21:23 AM by flyingmonkey »

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #42 on: April 29, 2010, 04:45:23 AM »
Figure out why.

FE would create a horizon due to perspective, nothing from the sky would ever go underneath this horizon, they would shrink until they disappear.
The Sun and Moon do not change to sizes that would be observed due to a perspective horizon, they sink below the horizon.

Once you can come up with an appropriate reason that this is observed, I will be happy to even think FE has a leg to stand on.

This is a different argument entirely.  One can empirically observe that the moon sinks below the horizon so however it happens, we know it happens.

Obviously, I favor electromagnetic acceleration as the explanation for this phenomenon in FET.

And it does.  See, if the object is close to the surface, than people on various sides of it will see something different.  If the moon in the FE model where as close to the surface as the Wiki claims it is, than everyone who looks at they each see a different side.  Since this does not happen in real life, than the object CANNOT be that close to the surface.  Shall I draw you a diagram?

Yes, please draw a diagram that explains how your experiment proves your point.
Here you go.  The top picture represents the FE model.  Notice how the figures are viewing opposites sides of the moon?  Now, in the bottom picture shows that when you greatly increase the distance between the surface and the moon, the figures are now viewing almost the same section of the moon.  That better?


So you are saying now that your proposed experiment is entirely irrelevant?  I'm certainly glad I saved myself the time.
NOt sure how you came to that conclusion.  The diagram above proves the same thing the experiment would.  You can try it if you don't believe it.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2010, 07:15:30 AM »
I favor the much easier to prove and less holey "The Earth Curves downwards away from you" explanation.

Let's take this premise to its logical conclusion.

A ship sails from Plymouth to New York. It follows the Earth's curvature down and away from Plymouth. Now it sails back to Plymouth. It follows the Earth's curvature down and away from New York. Down-ness is a transitive property. If we were to believe you, Plymouth would have to be below itself, since New York is below it, and it is below New York. I can assure you based on empirical observation that actually it occupies the same position as itself, as I have been to it on several occasions.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2010, 07:30:13 AM »
Way to misunderstand my point you tard.

Take a read of the bible, see how you go with taking that literally too.


Go troll somewhere else.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2010, 02:32:35 PM »
Way to misunderstand my point you tard.

Take a read of the bible, see how you go with taking that literally too.


Go troll somewhere else.

I'm afraid you won't be able to proselytize your religious texts upon me. I am a man of science, I trust only what I know through empirical evidence.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2010, 02:42:41 PM »
If we were to believe you, Plymouth would have to be below itself, since New York is below it, and it is below New York. I can assure you based on empirical observation that actually it occupies the same position as itself, as I have been to it on several occasions.
They're below each other because their references for "down" are different.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2010, 02:46:33 PM »
If we were to believe you, Plymouth would have to be below itself, since New York is below it, and it is below New York. I can assure you based on empirical observation that actually it occupies the same position as itself, as I have been to it on several occasions.
They're below each other because their references for "down" are different.


This diagram shows the confusion inherent to the globularist mind. How can we expect people who do not know which direction up is to measure the Earth and discern its form? Sideways is a linear direction, not a curved vector.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #48 on: April 29, 2010, 02:48:49 PM »
We're talking about geography.  Your definition of "up" is the same definition of people in Australia.  Your REFERENCE POINTS, however, are very different.  Up is the opposite of down, and down is towards the center of the Earth.  If people are on different places of the planet, they won't point to the same direction.

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #49 on: April 29, 2010, 02:50:51 PM »
How about this: your definition of "left" is the same as my definition of left, but if we're looking in different directions and both point to our left, will we not point in different directions as well?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #50 on: April 29, 2010, 02:59:06 PM »
How about this: your definition of "left" is the same as my definition of left, but if we're looking in different directions and both point to our left, will we not point in different directions as well?

Your left is not my left, but sideways is the same for way everybody.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2010, 03:03:58 PM »
Your left is not my left, but sideways is the same for way everybody.

When you travel to another place on the earth, you aren't going down.  You're going sideways to your own reference frame.  You may be going "down" in relation to the reference frame you're leaving or "up" in relation to the one you're going to, but you're not in either of those place.  By your own reference frame, you're moving sideways.  Do you not understand the concept of differing frames of reference?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2010, 03:10:12 PM »
Your left is not my left, but sideways is the same for way everybody.

When you travel to another place on the earth, you aren't going down.  You're going sideways to your own reference frame.  You may be going "down" in relation to the reference frame you're leaving or "up" in relation to the one you're going to, but you're not in either of those place.  By your own reference frame, you're moving sideways.  Do you not understand the concept of differing frames of reference?

See, there is no agreement amongst the globularists, they can't even agree on directions. You claim to be going sideways, flyingmonkey claimed to be going down. I think he is more right than you (but you are both wrong), because sideways is a straight line. You cannot even orient yourselves correctly, what hope is there of you discovering the truth???
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #53 on: April 29, 2010, 03:13:44 PM »
...flyingmonkey claimed to be going down.

We do agree.  I was keeping to the reference frame of the mover (sideways).  He was keeping to the original frame the mover left from (down, by the reference frame of his origin).  We could also have a third option of using the reference frame of the destination, in which case the mover is going to their "up."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42698
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #54 on: April 29, 2010, 04:11:06 PM »
If we were to believe you, Plymouth would have to be below itself, since New York is below it, and it is below New York. I can assure you based on empirical observation that actually it occupies the same position as itself, as I have been to it on several occasions.
They're below each other because their references for "down" are different.


This diagram shows the confusion inherent to the globularist mind. How can we expect people who do not know which direction up is to measure the Earth and discern its form? Sideways is a linear direction, not a curved vector.

Narcberry, is that you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #55 on: April 29, 2010, 04:55:30 PM »


This direction is up, for anybody who is having issues about this.

...flyingmonkey claimed to be going down.

We do agree.  I was keeping to the reference frame of the mover (sideways).  He was keeping to the original frame the mover left from (down, by the reference frame of his origin).  We could also have a third option of using the reference frame of the destination, in which case the mover is going to their "up."

It is all very well being subjective about lefts and rights, in fact sometimes it is useful. But there is only one universe, and directions in it are not subjective to individuals, they are the same for everybody. Up is always up.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #56 on: April 29, 2010, 07:55:11 PM »
NOt sure how you came to that conclusion.

Yes, I realize that.

Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #57 on: April 29, 2010, 07:59:49 PM »
NOt sure how you came to that conclusion.

Yes, I realize that.


Why don't you take a minute and explain what you thought I meant.

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #58 on: April 29, 2010, 08:26:54 PM »
Way to misunderstand my point you tard.

Take a read of the bible, see how you go with taking that literally too.


Go troll somewhere else.

I'm afraid you won't be able to proselytize your religious texts upon me. I am a man of science, I trust only what I know through empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence?!!??! Stop lying. You straight-out REFUSE empirical evidence. Again, FEer's are probably the worst Zetetics I know.





Just search "moon telescope" on Flickr. You can't keep calling the moon a flat disc. It does not agree with EMPIRICAL evidence.


This is a flat disc, though, right?

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #59 on: April 29, 2010, 08:45:22 PM »
It is all very well being subjective about lefts and rights, in fact sometimes it is useful. But there is only one universe, and directions in it are not subjective to individuals, they are the same for everybody. Up is always up.

It seems to me you're getting your terms confused.  "Up" for you is a plain and simple direction.  "Down" for someone on the other side of the planet is also rather obvious.  What you're not getting is that "up" for you and "down" for them are the same spacial direction.  You're getting mixed up by applying the same terms to differing reference frames.