Moon Phases

I don't see any shadows within "otherwise lit crators". You see what you want to see. I see light patterns on the Moon.

Source?

Source?

MOON'S SOUTH POLE

Here is the heavily cratered south polar region of the moon. The rugged outline is non-sperical. The crater Clavius is the large crater at the left above center, with its floor in shadow and 2 smaller craters inside it outlined. Although this is a color image, the neutral gray color of the moon resembles a black-and-white. Taken 9/4/03 as a composite of RGB 0.02-second exposures at f/10.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 02, 2011, 06:58:14 PM

I don't see any shadows within "otherwise lit crators". You see what you want to see. I see light patterns on the Moon.

*sigh*

You see what you want to see. I see light patterns on the Moon.

I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.

I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.

Also, how is it that everyone on the flat earth sees the same face of the moon?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 02, 2011, 08:22:27 PM

I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.

And darkness is the absence of light.  Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?

Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 08:28:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 02, 2011, 08:22:27 PM

I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.

And darkness is the absence of light.  Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?

Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.

Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 08:28:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 02, 2011, 08:22:27 PM

I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.

And darkness is the absence of light.  Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?

Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.

Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 08:28:57 PM

And darkness is the absence of light.  Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?

Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.

So now you have to explain more things. The first being, "How does the moon emit light," and the second one would be, "Why do some parts of the moon not emit light?" It's ok to have ideas, but, "Some parts of the moon don't emit light just because," isn't going to fly.

Isn't it odd that those areas not emitting light are in a such a pattern as to bear a striking resemblance to shadows?  How do you suppose that could be?  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but wouldn't it be simpler to conclude that those dark areas in the craters are indeed what they appear to be (i.e, shadows)?

Shadows have patterns which allow us to identify them as paterns? It's just the absence of light markjo. As for it being "simpler", if there are shadows, what's creating the shadows? I see the Moon, and it's shining. I think "the Moon shines, and the dark bits of the Moon don't shine". You think "the Moon is a sphere, and it wobbles and is lit up by a giant spherical Sun".

I know which sounds simplest to me.

Quote from: sillyrob on June 03, 2011, 07:24:31 AM

So now you have to explain more things. The first being, "How does the moon emit light," and the second one would be, "Why do some parts of the moon not emit light?" It's ok to have ideas, but, "Some parts of the moon don't emit light just because," isn't going to fly.

Why isn't it going to fly? Because I'm not pulling hypotheses out of my ass like scientists do? I'm a Zetetic, remember?

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2011, 07:56:32 AM

Isn't it odd that those areas not emitting light are in a such a pattern as to bear a striking resemblance to shadows?  How do you suppose that could be?  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but wouldn't it be simpler to conclude that those dark areas in the craters are indeed what they appear to be (i.e, shadows)?

Shadows have patterns which allow us to identify them as paterns? It's just the absence of light markjo. As for it being "simpler", if there are shadows, what's creating the shadows? I see the Moon, and it's shining. I think "the Moon shines, and the dark bits of the Moon don't shine". You think "the Moon is a sphere, and it wobbles and is lit up by a giant spherical Sun".


I know which sounds simplest to me.

Why isn't it going to fly? Because I'm not pulling hypotheses out of my ass like scientists do? I'm a Zetetic, remember?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 02, 2011, 07:23:42 PM

Source?

An "observatory".

I'm a Zetetic, remember?

Philosophy vs. Science
by Joseph Rowlands
The historical relationship between science and philosophy has not been a friendly one.  Philosophers like to start with their conclusions, and work to prove them.  When it came to trying to figure out what the world was like, philosophers tended to argue about what the world should be like.  Science was born as a rejection of this method.  Its goal was to figure out what the world was really all about, and its primary tool was actual experimentation.

We've all seen philosophy at its worst.  Philosophers are often completely disconnected from reality and, more recently, don't care.  Rationalism, the view that only deductive knowledge is really reliable, is commonplace.  Philosophers often expound their ideas from armchairs and ivory towers, where the facts of reality don't concern them.

Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 07:29:14 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 02, 2011, 07:23:42 PM

Source?

An "observatory".

Ah, there's your problem.

Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 08:28:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 02, 2011, 08:22:27 PM

I've looked at the Moon before markjo, I know what it looks like. I see a surface with varying degrees of luminescence.

And darkness is the absence of light.  Don't you see some illumination missing in some of the craters that seem like they should be fully illuminated?

Yes, I do. Those parts are probably dark because they are not emitting light.

You forget that Master Lord Willmires dreaming technique showed that there are shrimp on the moon.

His Antarctica theory is not in the FAQ as well but explains many many things.

I hope that he rewrites the FAQ soon, on of our greatest minds.a

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on June 04, 2011, 02:56:38 PM

You forget that Master Lord Willmires dreaming technique showed that there are shrimp on the moon.

His Antarctica theory is not in the FAQ as well but explains many many things.

I hope that he rewrites the FAQ soon, on of our greatest minds.a

You forget that dreams are not evidence.

Quote from: Harutsedo on June 04, 2011, 03:17:00 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on June 04, 2011, 02:56:38 PM

You forget that Master Lord Willmires dreaming technique showed that there are shrimp on the moon.

His Antarctica theory is not in the FAQ as well but explains many many things.

I hope that he rewrites the FAQ soon, on of our greatest minds.a

You forget that dreams are not evidence.

Dreams do provide empirical data and more as discussed here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46815.0