Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?

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. 

Quote from: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 09:00:56 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. 

That is because the Moon is flat.

The CGI artwork of an insane globularist fantasy will do nothing to convince me. That picture looks nothing like the Moon.

Quote from: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 09:18:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2010, 09:02:52 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 09:00:56 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.  

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2010, 09:33:23 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 09:18:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2010, 09:02:52 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 09:00:56 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?

Quote from: Sliver on April 28, 2010, 07:33:40 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.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 28, 2010, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 28, 2010, 07:33:40 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?

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 27, 2010, 09:28:27 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.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 28, 2010, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 28, 2010, 07:33:40 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?

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 28, 2010, 09:20:31 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.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 28, 2010, 09:20:31 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.

Quote from: Sliver on April 28, 2010, 08:13:05 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 28, 2010, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 28, 2010, 07:33:40 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?

So you are saying now that your proposed experiment is entirely irrelevant?  I'm certainly glad I saved myself the time.

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

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.

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.

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 07:15:30 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 02:59:06 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?

...flyingmonkey claimed to be going down.

Quote from: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 02:42:41 PM

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 07:15:30 AM

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.

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 03:10:12 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."

NOt sure how you came to that conclusion.

Quote from: Sliver on April 29, 2010, 04:45:23 AM

NOt sure how you came to that conclusion.

Yes, I realize that.

Quote from: flyingmonkey 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.

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.

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.