The Moon does not appear flat

The properties of Moonlight are markedly different from those of Sunlight, so much so that we may be almost certain that they are not of the same origin.

The properties of Moonlight are markedly different from those of Sunlight, so much so that we may be almost certain that they are not of the same origin.

Nonsense. The only measurable differences are due to partial absorption from lunar material (completely understood), thermal radiation (completely understood) and a component of reflected light from the Earth (completely understood). All three effects are very small and distinguishable from the reflected sunlight and completely understood.

The properties of Moonlight are markedly different from those of Sunlight, so much so that we may be almost certain that they are not of the same origin.

I think an injection of fact based evidence would go a long way to making this story cool James.

James:

Please show how the properties of moonlight are "markedly different" than those of sunlight.

Granted, the intensity is different, but their spectra are nearly identical.

Quote from: James on July 28, 2010, 04:21:25 PM

The properties of Moonlight are markedly different from those of Sunlight, so much so that we may be almost certain that they are not of the same origin.

Nonsense. The only measurable differences are due to partial absorption from lunar material (completely understood), thermal radiation (completely understood) and a component of reflected light from the Earth (completely understood). All three effects are very small and distinguishable from the reflected sunlight and completely understood.

A myriad of studies have shown the bizarre effects of Moonlight which are not found in Sunlight.


From our own scientists, I recommend the following:
Effects on plants, rattlesnakes and a human test subject: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0

Effects on a cnidarian test subject: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0

My own writings on the Moon, which catalogue some of its effects as well as explaining the real reason they occur:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
NB: see in particular the section entitled "What Science Tells Us About the Lights of the Celestial Bodies"

I urge you also to see Rowbotham, S. (1881) Earth Not a Globe pp. 139-148., which may be accessed freely here: http://mail.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm
the above is a comprehensive catalogue of many of Moonlight's effects (and Sunlight's).

See the following for the mental peturbances which the Moon causes:

Bhattacharjee, C., Bradley, P. et al. (2000) 'Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon? Retrospective Observational Analysis'. In BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, No. 7276. pp. 1559-1561.

Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.

Who peer reviewed those documents James?

So you can't refute that the wavelengths of moonlight are nearly identical to those of sunlight?

Quote from: Hortensius on July 28, 2010, 04:28:09 PM

Quote from: James on July 28, 2010, 04:21:25 PM

The properties of Moonlight are markedly different from those of Sunlight, so much so that we may be almost certain that they are not of the same origin.

Nonsense. The only measurable differences are due to partial absorption from lunar material (completely understood), thermal radiation (completely understood) and a component of reflected light from the Earth (completely understood). All three effects are very small and distinguishable from the reflected sunlight and completely understood.

A myriad of studies have shown the bizarre effects of Moonlight which are not found in Sunlight.


From our own scientists, I recommend the following:
Effects on plants, rattlesnakes and a human test subject: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0

Effects on a cnidarian test subject: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0

My own writings on the Moon, which catalogue some of its effects as well as explaining the real reason they occur:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
NB: see in particular the section entitled "What Science Tells Us About the Lights of the Celestial Bodies"

I urge you also to see Rowbotham, S. (1881) Earth Not a Globe pp. 139-148., which may be accessed freely here: http://mail.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm
the above is a comprehensive catalogue of many of Moonlight's effects (and Sunlight's).

See the following for the mental peturbances which the Moon causes:

Bhattacharjee, C., Bradley, P. et al. (2000) 'Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon? Retrospective Observational Analysis'. In BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, No. 7276. pp. 1559-1561.

Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.

So you are saying that people and animals tend to be more active on nights when there is more natural illumination?  I believe that the appropriate reaction to that revelation would be, "Duh!"

Thanhks a lot for ur sharing.
We know more about the Moon

Nolhekh, I see now where you're going wrong. It may well be that the only shape the Moon could be based on the assumption that it is reflecting light would be a rough sphere.

Luckily, I do not make that assumption, nor does any other Flat Earther.

The Moon shines by her own light.

The assumption is based on the fact that the shape of light on a rough sphere is identical to that of the lunar phases, the fact that the lunar phases are precisely correlated with the position of the moon in the sky relative to the sun, and the fact that the light part of the moon always points towards the sun.  It fits perfectly the criteria for a rough globe in sunlight.  

Whether or not the moon emits harmful radiation is another matter entirely, as it is not dependant on its shape

Quote from: Hortensius on July 28, 2010, 04:28:09 PM

Quote from: James on July 28, 2010, 04:21:25 PM

The properties of Moonlight are markedly different from those of Sunlight, so much so that we may be almost certain that they are not of the same origin.

Nonsense. The only measurable differences are due to partial absorption from lunar material (completely understood), thermal radiation (completely understood) and a component of reflected light from the Earth (completely understood). All three effects are very small and distinguishable from the reflected sunlight and completely understood.

A myriad of studies have shown the bizarre effects of Moonlight which are not found in Sunlight.

  I thought that you were asked about moonlight properties, not how some snakes and plants are behaving at night when moon shines. Because if you really take and read these papers(not just Ichimaru's twisted summaries) about plants and rattlesnakes then there are nothing about how moonlight harms them. So, how about some real properties of the moonlight instead correlations between behavior and moonlight?

Quote from: Hortensius on July 28, 2010, 04:28:09 PM

Quote from: James on July 28, 2010, 04:21:25 PM

The properties of Moonlight are markedly different from those of Sunlight, so much so that we may be almost certain that they are not of the same origin.

Nonsense. The only measurable differences are due to partial absorption from lunar material (completely understood), thermal radiation (completely understood) and a component of reflected light from the Earth (completely understood). All three effects are very small and distinguishable from the reflected sunlight and completely understood.

A myriad of studies have shown the bizarre effects of Moonlight which are not found in Sunlight.


From our own scientists, I recommend the following:
Effects on plants, rattlesnakes and a human test subject: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0

Effects on a cnidarian test subject: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0

My own writings on the Moon, which catalogue some of its effects as well as explaining the real reason they occur:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
NB: see in particular the section entitled "What Science Tells Us About the Lights of the Celestial Bodies"

I urge you also to see Rowbotham, S. (1881) Earth Not a Globe pp. 139-148., which may be accessed freely here: http://mail.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm
the above is a comprehensive catalogue of many of Moonlight's effects (and Sunlight's).

See the following for the mental peturbances which the Moon causes:

Bhattacharjee, C., Bradley, P. et al. (2000) 'Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon? Retrospective Observational Analysis'. In BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, No. 7276. pp. 1559-1561.

Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.

Why measuring the moonlight directly, if you can study it indirectly? That's your approach?

Right, so all the effects you are referring to are miraculously caused by the light of the moon, even though it is spectrally virtually identical to sunlight? There are no other factors, like the monthly biorhythm caused by the moon, illuminated nights (disturbed night/day rhythm) or even the tides? It's all in the light itself?

A scientist might ask what property of the light causes those things to happen, however James has merely concluded that moonlight causes all those effects without identifying the mechanism, and ignoring any other possible explanations.

All this talk about weird phenomena has overshadowed the simplest of facts about light: The shadows indicate where light comes from. If you see the light reaching parts of a crater and not others, it is quite evident that the light does not come from the inside of the crater. Therefore, if you check which parts of the crater are in a shadow, you can know the direction light came from. It is as simple as that, and the photographs shown here, that anyone with a good telescope can reproduce, show in which direction the light hitting the sun came from.

Yeah, sorry, CGI pictures of the Moon aren't going to convince me of much when I can just look at the actual Moon.

And see the nice libration. Hahahaha.

All this talk about weird phenomena has overshadowed the simplest of facts about light: The shadows indicate where light comes from. If you see the light reaching parts of a crater and not others, it is quite evident that the light does not come from the inside of the crater. Therefore, if you check which parts of the crater are in a shadow, you can know the direction light came from. It is as simple as that, and the photographs shown here, that anyone with a good telescope can reproduce, show in which direction the light hitting the sun came from.

Side view of the Moltke crater taken from Apollo 11

As you can see, the shadows are coming from the left. That would mean that the light is coming from the left and being blocked by the craters. Also, if the moon, according to FET, makes its own light, do all the other moons of other planets make their own light also?

Side view of the Moltke crater taken from Apollo 11
[ img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/AS10-29-4324.jpg[ /img]
As you can see, the shadows are coming from the left. That would mean that the light is coming from the left and being blocked by the craters. Also, if the moon, according to FET, makes its own light, do all the other moons of other planets make their own light also?

So, with a little work and a good telescope you will be able to check whether the light comes always from the Sun or not. So guess what this simple experiment will tell us...

You will also notice the FE'rs never, ever even try to explain the light on the Moon with a diagram. If you make the diagram you are telling the angle of incidence of the light against the moon, and that angle would be easily verifiable against the shadows on the Moon. On the other hand, it is easily seen how the shadows on the Moon, when visible, point towards the Sun.

Not that Any one Ceres what I think but I think those FEers are talking shit just for the sake of talking shit!

There is simply no reason to suspect that the Moon is covered in mountains and valleys based on observatione none.

So how do you account for Bailey's Beads?

How can the Moon be flat when the shadows come from varying angles depending on where the light-blocking objects are on the Moon?

I believe in a disc shaped earth, but its very obvious from my high powered telescope that the moon craters have shadows. I dont see any shadows on the sun.

What make more sense is that the sun shines a floodlight beam that creates the phases of the moon and also causes our days and nights.

I believe in a disc shaped earth, but its very obvious from my high powered telescope that the moon craters have shadows. I dont see any shadows on the sun.

What make more sense is that the sun shines a floodlight beam that creates the phases of the moon and also causes our days and nights.

Please then tell show us how that would work with your map of the FE. In particular, show us the illuminated area at noon GMT on December 21, March 21, and June 21. Can you explain how the Sun shines from the south in some places inside the Antarctic Circle on December 21? Please draw a simple diagram to show how the floodlight beam can illuminate a full moon but not the Earth below it.

I believe in a disc shaped earth, but its very obvious from my high powered telescope that the moon craters have shadows. I dont see any shadows on the sun.

What make more sense is that the sun shines a floodlight beam that creates the phases of the moon and also causes our days and nights.

Then you can do a very simple experiment. Photograph the sun every hour or so for a complete day. If possible, select the speed of the camera manually.

If the sun is indeed a flashlight it will show less than an almost perfect circular shape, and it will show the sunspots in different places throughout the day. The same will be true for the moon.

But as always, all the FE theorists will just happen to back off from any experiment that may destroy their house of cards.

So, the claim is that the Moon does not appear like a normal sphere because it is a rough sphere, i. e., that it has topological features like those of Earth. Yet as Rowbotham has said:

Quote from: Rowbotham, S. (1881) Earth Not a Globe. pp. 334-335

Astronomers have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordnance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious.

So essentially he says that the moon is flat because it looks flat, despite the detailed mapping + observations made by highly qualified astronomers.  No evidence or support to back up his statement other than "it looks flat".

Maybe the sun's flat too. That would explain it all.

The properties of Moonlight are markedly different from those of Sunlight, so much so that we may be almost certain that they are not of the same origin.

You might actually want to try and track a sunset vs where the moon phases show light. It's always 100 percent accurate to the position and angle of the sun.. Playing the role of the intentional town ignorant fool does not win you magical credibility. And you might want to look up the reflective properties of the moon. The moons Albedo is completely accurate to reflecting sunlight. The albedo of the Moon is around 0.07 to 0.12(estimated over all), and is directional and non-Lambertian. It also displays an opposition effect. So yes these reflectance properties are different from those of any terrestrial terrain here on Earth, but they are very typical of the regolith surfaces of airless bodies in a Vacuum such as Asteroids, other moons ect.

You can study the Moons albedo here:

http://www.universetoday.com/19981/moon-albedo/
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-12771.pdf

And you might want to figure out the physics of something that has an albedo vs something that doesn't.. Hint: Stars do not have an albedo.


So you might want to actually get a decent telescope and spend some time studying the moon phases to understand your complete failure.. And sorry, FE'rs assume just about everything lol. And for the record, my own visual observations show the moon to be spherical. And you also might want to learn how to track the moons orbit to understand why again FE is false.

http://www.online-tech-tips.com/fun-stuff/how-to-track-the-moons-path-position-across-the-sky-in-real-time/
http://celestrak.com/columns/v03n03/
http://www.brentstuder.com/kcc/moontrack.html

I believe in a disc shaped earth, but its very obvious from my high powered telescope that the moon craters have shadows. I dont see any shadows on the sun.

What make more sense is that the sun shines a floodlight beam that creates the phases of the moon and also causes our days and nights.

That is by definition the difference between something that has an albedo vs something that produces it's own light.  However, the sun isn't a disk or flashlight for obvious reasons.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on September 06, 2010, 05:47:44 PM

I believe in a disc shaped earth, but its very obvious from my high powered telescope that the moon craters have shadows. I dont see any shadows on the sun.

What make more sense is that the sun shines a floodlight beam that creates the phases of the moon and also causes our days and nights.

That is by definition the difference between something that has an albedo vs something that produces it's own light.  However, the sun isn't a disk or flashlight for obvious reasons.

Something with an albedo can produce its own light also. In fact every known object in the universe with an albedo produces its own (thermal) light. And the sun has an albedo too.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 14, 2010, 10:08:17 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on September 06, 2010, 05:47:44 PM

I believe in a disc shaped earth, but its very obvious from my high powered telescope that the moon craters have shadows. I dont see any shadows on the sun.

What make more sense is that the sun shines a floodlight beam that creates the phases of the moon and also causes our days and nights.

That is by definition the difference between something that has an albedo vs something that produces it's own light.  However, the sun isn't a disk or flashlight for obvious reasons.

Something with an albedo can produce its own light also. In fact every known object in the universe with an albedo produces its own (thermal) light. And the sun has an albedo too.

Please try again. It might help you to understand by actually knowing what an Albedo is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

And the moon is clearly reflecting sunlight.

Quote from: Hortensius on September 14, 2010, 07:17:57 PM

Quote from: TheJackel on September 14, 2010, 10:08:17 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on September 06, 2010, 05:47:44 PM

I believe in a disc shaped earth, but its very obvious from my high powered telescope that the moon craters have shadows. I dont see any shadows on the sun.

What make more sense is that the sun shines a floodlight beam that creates the phases of the moon and also causes our days and nights.

That is by definition the difference between something that has an albedo vs something that produces it's own light.  However, the sun isn't a disk or flashlight for obvious reasons.

Something with an albedo can produce its own light also. In fact every known object in the universe with an albedo produces its own (thermal) light. And the sun has an albedo too.

Please try again. It might help you to understand by actually knowing what an Albedo is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

And the moon is clearly reflecting sunlight.

If you think the Sun has no reflectivity you are wrong. And if you think that the moon does not radiate by itself (apart from reflecting sunlight), you are also wrong. What is your level in Astrophysics?

If you want to understand more about what you're talking about: http://www.amazon.com/Radiative-Processes-Astrophysics-George-Rybicki/dp/0471827592