A few Questions

I've been reading a bit of threads that oppose the FET. I've got a few questions of my own:
1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )
2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.
3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?
4. What caused mountains? How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?
5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

I'll probably have more questions later, but we'll start off slow for now. I've tried to ask questions not covered in the FAQ. From what I've seen so far, I've seen a lot of deviation off the main topic on other threads that attempt to 'debunk' the FE theory. I'm looking for straight answers, please.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.

While you are in the eclipse subject, one thing FE'rs always neglect to explain is that the moon and the sun are always where "globularism" predict they will be seen, while FE "theories" almost never do.

First, you can look at the moon just when it is at its fullest and see how it is usually not perfectly full, but either the Northern border or the Southern border is dark. When this effect is clearly discernible there is never an eclipse, neither solar nor lunar. When this effect is impossible to see there is a chance of an eclipse in the following weeks.

This effect is clearly explainable by the orientation of the orbits of the moon and Earth, but has no explanation whatsoever in any FE "theory". Since the eclipses are produced by the "anti-moon" you should not be able to see indications of imminent eclipses on the moon: you should see them on the "anti-moon".

And another simple fact to remember: solar eclipses are seen when the moon is at its least full and lunar eclipses when the moon is at its fullest. You can track their movements so you can extrapolate their positions and you will always see they are in line with Earth during an eclipse. No explanation for this in FE "theories" either.

1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )

It circles around the Earth, much like the moon and sun. Unless you have supernatural powers, you're very unlikely to spot a black anti-moon on the black night sky.

2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.

In fact, I have no idea.

3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?

Define "unique". The way I see it, everything is unique. There are no two identical macroscopic objects.

4. What caused mountains?

Same reasoning as in RET.

How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?

The Earth is not 9000 years old.

5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

It does, but the reaction has not been established yet. I believe Tom Bishop has once suggested that the Sun is made of coal, but I personally consider this very far-fetched.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

Some people here do that. However, I assure you most of FE'ers are genuine believers.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.

Yeah, that's basically how it works. Angry noobs will face a "lurk moar", reasonable contributors can expect a civilised conversation.

Also, welcome to the forum! I hope you'll enjoy your stay.

Define "unique". The way I see it, everything is unique. There are no two identical macroscopic objects.

I'm gonna take a leap and say he's referring to the supposed flatness of the Earth when all other (observed) celestial bodies are round.

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

I mean in the sense that other planets have moons that orbit them and are spherical, while the earth is the only body that is flat.

To your answer to my 4th question, I thought I read somewhere that in the flat earth theory, the earth is not approx. 4.6 billion years old, but a much younger 9000 years. Can you please clarify the subject.

About the answer of the antimoon: It seems highly unlikely that the antimoon hasn't been spotted, if an all black body was circling the 'sky', it would most certainly have blocked other stars in the night sky. And where is this body during the 'day'? Also, based on the FAQ, a lunar eclipse is caused by the interception of the antimoon between the moon and sun. If the sun and moon are spotlights, how would this affect the light we receive from the moon? Wouldn't we have noticed another gravitational force at work by looking at the tides?

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

Of course.  But I think the OP (and the majority of RE'ers) are conerned with the huge, fundamental difference(s) in properties and characteristics between the "flat Earth" and other celestial bodies.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 03, 2011, 05:46:28 AM

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

Of course.  But I think the OP (and the majority of RE'ers) are conerned with the huge, fundamental difference(s) in properties and characteristics between the "flat Earth" and other celestial bodies.

Yes, this is what I mean.

Another question I've thought of, what illuminates the other planets? Surely it can't be the sun rotating directly above the earth, it isn't powerful enough to give off enough light that we could see other planets? If it could, wouldn't we be fried? I'm also still waiting an aswer to the antimoon questions I've asked earlier.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 03, 2011, 05:46:28 AM

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

Of course.  But I think the OP (and the majority of RE'ers) are conerned with the huge, fundamental difference(s) in properties and characteristics between the "flat Earth" and other celestial bodies.

The Earth is a not a celedtial body. The Earth is the Earth.

Quote from: Hessy on June 03, 2011, 09:27:43 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 03, 2011, 05:46:28 AM

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

Of course.  But I think the OP (and the majority of RE'ers) are conerned with the huge, fundamental difference(s) in properties and characteristics between the "flat Earth" and other celestial bodies.

The Earth is a not a celedtial body. The Earth is the Earth.

The Earth is a celestial body.

Quote from: Hessy on June 03, 2011, 09:27:43 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 03, 2011, 05:46:28 AM

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

Of course.  But I think the OP (and the majority of RE'ers) are conerned with the huge, fundamental difference(s) in properties and characteristics between the "flat Earth" and other celestial bodies.

The Earth is a not a celestial body. The Earth is the Earth.

Don't be pedantic.  My point has been made regardless of the term used to describe the Earth in relation to all other bodies in space.

I've been reading a bit of threads that oppose the FET. I've got a few questions of my own:
1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )
2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.
3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?
4. What caused mountains? How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?
5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

I'll probably have more questions later, but we'll start off slow for now. I've tried to ask questions not covered in the FAQ. From what I've seen so far, I've seen a lot of deviation off the main topic on other threads that attempt to 'debunk' the FE theory. I'm looking for straight answers, please.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.

2. Solar eclipses don't exist, the conspiracy made them up.
4. Same as above
5. Same as 2

Quote from: JDL on June 03, 2011, 01:10:53 AM

I've been reading a bit of threads that oppose the FET. I've got a few questions of my own:
1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )
2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.
3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?
4. What caused mountains? How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?
5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

I'll probably have more questions later, but we'll start off slow for now. I've tried to ask questions not covered in the FAQ. From what I've seen so far, I've seen a lot of deviation off the main topic on other threads that attempt to 'debunk' the FE theory. I'm looking for straight answers, please.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.

2. Solar eclipses don't exist, the conspiracy made them up.
4. Same as above
5. Same as 2

If I keep seeing posts like this, I'll go with my original theory that this site is all one big troll.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on June 03, 2011, 06:22:51 PM

Quote from: JDL on June 03, 2011, 01:10:53 AM

I've been reading a bit of threads that oppose the FET. I've got a few questions of my own:
1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )
2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.
3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?
4. What caused mountains? How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?
5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

I'll probably have more questions later, but we'll start off slow for now. I've tried to ask questions not covered in the FAQ. From what I've seen so far, I've seen a lot of deviation off the main topic on other threads that attempt to 'debunk' the FE theory. I'm looking for straight answers, please.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.

2. Solar eclipses don't exist, the conspiracy made them up.
4. Same as above
5. Same as 2

If I keep seeing posts like this, I'll go with my original theory that this site is all one big troll.

Right, because his 44 posts suggests that he reflects this site as a whole.

Quote from: JDL on June 03, 2011, 08:24:49 PM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on June 03, 2011, 06:22:51 PM

Quote from: JDL on June 03, 2011, 01:10:53 AM

I've been reading a bit of threads that oppose the FET. I've got a few questions of my own:
1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )
2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.
3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?
4. What caused mountains? How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?
5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

I'll probably have more questions later, but we'll start off slow for now. I've tried to ask questions not covered in the FAQ. From what I've seen so far, I've seen a lot of deviation off the main topic on other threads that attempt to 'debunk' the FE theory. I'm looking for straight answers, please.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.

2. Solar eclipses don't exist, the conspiracy made them up.
4. Same as above
5. Same as 2

If I keep seeing posts like this, I'll go with my original theory that this site is all one big troll.

Right, because his 44 posts suggests that he reflects this site as a whole.

No, you're right. That was a rash jump to conclusion on my part. I'm growing rather impatient, seeing as there have been more posts that don't answer my questions that do.

I have been reading other posts in the meantime, and from what I see, no one really looks to prove the FET. Instead, they propose this theory, and seek to disprove all other theories (RET) without providing as much as a shred of proof to their own. Throw in a reason to discredit one of the only ways to get outer space photographs(nasa), and you pretty much have an airtight 'theory'. The FET don't do conventional tests or experiments, instead they challenge the opposition to prove their own theory, deflecting the query of experimentation onto the other. Through this tactic, they look to disprove other theories, and leave their own theory standing. To be honest, I wouldn't even call this (FET) a theory, but more of a postulation. Little to no science support this postulation other than the vague misunderstood science used to defend it. All else is ignored.

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 03, 2011, 02:58:21 PM

Quote from: Hessy on June 03, 2011, 09:27:43 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 03, 2011, 05:46:28 AM

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

Of course.  But I think the OP (and the majority of RE'ers) are conerned with the huge, fundamental difference(s) in properties and characteristics between the "flat Earth" and other celestial bodies.

The Earth is a not a celestial body. The Earth is the Earth.

Don't be pedantic.  My point has been made regardless of the term used to describe the Earth in relation to all other bodies in space.

You're trying to describe FET in terms of RET. In FET, the Earth is a unique body and, in the Davis model, not a celestial body in any traditional sense.

I'm growing rather impatient, seeing as there have been more posts that don't answer my questions than do.

That's alright, you'll get used to it.

You're trying to describe FET in terms of RET. In FET, the Earth is a unique body and, in the Davis model, not a celestial body in any traditional sense.

Hmm, so uniformity doesn't exist in the FET model. I'm wondering, is there any rational thought that went into these speculations? Or did someone come up with theories that specifically couldn't be tested?

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 04, 2011, 02:07:38 AM

You're trying to describe FET in terms of RET. In FET, the Earth is a unique body and, in the Davis model, not a celestial body in any traditional sense.

Hmm, so uniformity doesn't exist in the FET model. I'm wondering, is there any rational thought that went into these speculations? Or did someone come up with theories that specifically couldn't be tested?

Who said uniformity doesn't exist? Two or three unique objects doesn't compromise uniformity.

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 04, 2011, 02:07:38 AM

You're trying to describe FET in terms of RET. In FET, the Earth is a unique body and, in the Davis model, not a celestial body in any traditional sense.

Hmm, so uniformity doesn't exist in the FET model. I'm wondering, is there any rational thought that went into these speculations? Or did someone come up with theories that specifically couldn't be tested?

Of course rational thought was used to construct these theories! How do you think the boat building Dinosaurs and the Moon Shrimp were proven?

Quote from: JDL on June 04, 2011, 11:01:35 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 04, 2011, 02:07:38 AM

You're trying to describe FET in terms of RET. In FET, the Earth is a unique body and, in the Davis model, not a celestial body in any traditional sense.

Hmm, so uniformity doesn't exist in the FET model. I'm wondering, is there any rational thought that went into these speculations? Or did someone come up with theories that specifically couldn't be tested?

Who said uniformity doesn't exist? Two or three unique objects doesn't compromise uniformity.

One unique object amongst so many uniform bodies does, however, compromise uniformity.