The Shape of the Moon

Once again, I'm refreshing this topic because no Fe'er has given me a satisfactory answer.

Because the Moon's orbit is not a perfect circle but actually an ellipse, its spin and rotation don't exactly match up. This means that sometimes the spin lags behind the orbital speed, and sometimes it moves ahead. This in turn means that we can "peek" around a bit onto the far side of the Moon. This is called "libration".

See here:
http://www.nwgis.com/greg/images/libration.jpg

and here:
http://www.madpc.net/~peterl/Moon/Libration.jpg


I've had two previous explinations of this phenomena presented to me in the past.

The first turned out to be from a troll.

The second came from a legitamate Fe'er, but proved to be inadequate.  He talked about atmospheric effects which might explain why the moon never appears elliptical, But did not explain the dirrect effects of libration i.e. the "formation" of new mountains and craters on the moons edge.
 

So I am still seeking an answer to this question.

Now please don't tell me these images are faked. Anybody with a 3 inch telescope can observe this effect. I myself actually first noticed it with a pair of binoculars.

Will a FEer please explain this effect to me?

Damn staight, I want to hear a reason too.

On that note i'm gonna go ressurect some of MY old posts now too.

you wont get one, only retards posting about irrelevant false claims that 1+1 is not 2.

you wont get one, only retards posting about irrelevant false claims that 1+1 is not 2.

1 + 1 = 1 if your talking about two masses joining to one like two raindrops forming into one

but the mass of two raindrops (1 +1) equals twice the mass (=2)

Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"

you wont get one, only retards posting about irrelevant false claims that 1+1 is not 2.

1 + 1 = 1 if your talking about two masses joining to one like two raindrops forming into one

but the mass of two raindrops (1 +1) equals twice the mass (=2)

yes yes yes yes yes. the raindrop is not a quantifiabloe discrete entity whereas mass is. in that bollocks situation, 1+1=2. it has no relevance at all to the shape of the earth, just yet another shite diversionary topic

Quote from: "Luke_smith64"

Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"

you wont get one, only retards posting about irrelevant false claims that 1+1 is not 2.

1 + 1 = 1 if your talking about two masses joining to one like two raindrops forming into one

but the mass of two raindrops (1 +1) equals twice the mass (=2)

yes yes yes yes yes. the raindrop is not a quantifiabloe discrete entity whereas mass is. in that bollocks situation, 1+1=2. it has no relevance at all to the shape of the earth, just yet another shite diversionary topic

I don't know what you want me to say here

are you saying MY statement was wrong, cause it's not

Stay on topic, Post about the difference beetween adding mass and an arbitrary quantity on the appropriate thread :wink:

I ask again, can any FE'er provide an explination for the effects of Libration?

How long will it be till Dogplatter finds this thread and deletes it?

you wont get one, only retards posting about irrelevant false claims that 1+1 is not 2.

Nobody on this forum has claimed that.  You simply are incapable of reading.

How long will it be till Dogplatter finds this thread and deletes it?

I only ever delete commercial posts by bots or spam by mass-trolls. I'm not actually allowed to delete anything else, not that I'd want to.

Thats nice to know Dogplatter.

Infact, if you remember, you were the one who gave me the 2nd explination that I make reference to in the opening post of this thread.

So I am particularly eager to hear your explination of Libration.

Remember, I see why atmospheric effects might account for why the moon never looks elliptical, but I don't understand how they could account for the primary effects of libration.  i.e. watching mountains and craters rotate towards and away from you as the month passes.

Could you please provide an explination for that consistent with the FE model?  Thanks.

The moon is actually slightly larger than it appears, but is just behind an annulus (Disc with hole in it) made of the same material as the third celestial body. The annulus and the moon move at roughly the same speed, but sometimes the moon gets ahead, sometimes it lags behind. this explains why sometimes we can see some parts of the moon, and at other times we can see others

Irishpeter,

You really think that observing the moon through a large disk with a hole in it could account for something like this?  Remember, the new surface features don't just appear suddenly as if they had been eclipsed by this annulus.  They rotate into view.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif

Sorry, this explanation just doesn't hold water.  Please provide one which accounts for all observed effects.

Quote from: "Yardstick2006"

How long will it be till Dogplatter finds this thread and deletes it?

I only ever delete commercial posts by bots or spam by mass-trolls.

And threads debunking your flat earth dogma

I don't know how this happens, but EXPLAIN TO ME HOW GRAVITY WORKS!!

That is apparently the best way to win any argument on this forum, and is the perfect counter for any point a REer might come up with!!

I think Irishpeters above statement should be taken as clear evidence that he cannot explain the effects of libration, or is a troll.  Possibly both.

I could just as easily derail you argument by asking you to EXPLAIN HOW DARK ENERGY WORKS!!  But I'm not going to.


But to answer his question:

Gravity works via a cohesive force beetween two objects which falls off according to the inverse sqaure of the distance beetween them, and who's magntiude is determined to be:

(Gravitational constant  x  Mass #1  x  Mass #2) / (Distance ^2)

If your asking for a mediating particle or wave, we don't know that yet.  But that doesn't mean the above description is wrong.  People were using Coulombs law of electrical force long before they knew what a photon was.

Also bear in mind that it was the above law that helped us understand the mechanics which cause the moon to oscilate back and forth (librate.)



So, irishpeter's description of libration is still unsatisfactory, and his last post just lost him credibility.

Any other FE'er who thinks they can explain the effects libration?

I was being a troll, as you put it. I thought I'd put enough thinly-veiled sarcasm into my posts.

I think the question "how does gravity work" is actually asking "what causes gravity?" and obviously your answer doesn't give that information, and obviously there is no conclusive scientific consensus on what causes gravity.  Lack of knowledge isn't neccessarily proof on non existence though.  The fact that things drop to the ground seems like strong evidence of the existence of gravity - although there is the constantly accelerating flat earth theory - which is a pretty good counter theory.

Not really beast.  The theory of universal gravitation has a good deal more observational evidence and predictive power behind it then the constantly accelerating Earth hypothesis.

Still any takers on Libration?  I'm still waiting. . .

There's this really nifty theory that the moon is actually a sphere...

Thanks irishpeter,

And if you want ultimate confirmation of the evidence, buy a 2 inch telescope and a disposible camera, and photograph the moon every night for a month.  Any FEer can do this for themselves.

Still no takers on providing an explination.  I noticed doggplatter came here long enough to explain his philosophy on deleting posts, but never tried to defend his position. . .

And threads debunking your flat earth dogma

You're wrong. Why do you hate me so much? Why do you fear and hate the Flat Earth theory?

OK, dogplatter, your here.

Forget about yardstick for a minute and please answer my question.  If any FE'er can provide a reasonable answer as to the effects of libration, it should be you.

I'm waiting.

OK, dogplatter, your here.

Forget about yardstick for a minute and please answer my question.  If any FE'er can provide a reasonable answer as to the effects of libration, it should be you.

I'm waiting.

It's simple. Just as sunspots can appear and move, so blotches on the Moon can appear to move slightly. The Sun and Moon work in highly similar ways.

Why is it possible to see the moon during the day? It would not be possible in the flat Earth model. Also, if the moon is not spherical, then that means it would not appear perfectly round the further north or south you go.

No timewarp, Dogplatter has already explained why it doesn't look eliptical, and how it can be seen durring the day.
Search other forums before discussing that topic.

But "slightly moving blotches on the moon" is not what we are observing.  Take a look at this one month timelapse video of the moon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif

It's not just "small blotches", it's the entire lunar surface.  I don't think your proposed model could account for these kind of effects.

Ok, I'm going to make a proposition to everyone on this forum who identifies themselves as Flat-Earthers.

As the discussions in this topic show, the FE model really doesn't provide an adequate or even simple answer to the question of libration.  So I propose this.

Why doesn't Flat Earth Society integrate the idea that the moon and sun are round into their philosophy?  If FE is a true scientific idea, it should be aloud to do this.

Allowing the moon and sun to be spherical would simplify things in many ways for the FE community.

1. It would adequately explain the observed effects of libration, and the observed rotation of the sun when viewed through a solar filter.

2.  It would explain why the moon and sun never appear spherical, without the need to imply any form of atmospheric distortion or lensing.

3.  It would explain the phases of the moon, without the need for the proposed "third body" as dogplatter put it.

4.  It could explain tides as caused by the attraction from the moon and the sun, without the need for the earth to tilt about periodically.

All this without touching the basic premise of the Earth's shape.

So how about it FE'ers?  Simplify your whole hypothesis and allow celestial bodies to assume a spherical shape.  After all, Samuel Rowbotham was just a human, he could have been wrong about them.

The moon is of four dimensional Cubic nature and is thus a gravitational cube.

Problem solved.

exactly

in fact i believe it is not really a moon but a figment of the human imagination, fulfilling a need deep within us