FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon

  • 40 Replies
  • 4860 Views
*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« on: October 16, 2011, 03:17:05 AM »
I understand there are two rival theories in FET concerning  the shape of the moon : Spherical or discoidal. I used a 3D program (Softimage) to render images of what the moon would look like in both models.

I start from the hypothesis that the moon is 3000 miles above the earth, as claimed in your FAQ, that it's either a sphere or disc, and that its visible side or hemisphere is always pointing downwards. Let's consider an observer 3000 miles away from the point on earth below the moon. So the moon is seen from an angle of 45°. Let's see what it would look like in both models:


The result is that none of the two assumptions corresponds to everynight's observation. In the spherical model, we would see a large part of the far side of the moon (coloured blue for clarity); in the discoidal model, the moon would appear as an ellipse. Logic dictates that my initial assumption must be false. Thus, the moon is actually not rotating 3000 miles above the ground, qed.   

Again, observation disproves FET.

(As a sidenote, one might argue that the moon does not actually face downwards, but somehow turns towards the observer to keep its far side hidden and its shape nice and round. But then again, given that there are about seven billions of observers scattered all over the glo... errr disc, the moon would have a hard time turning towards all of them at the same time, wouldn't it?)
« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 03:30:19 AM by Zogg »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2011, 05:53:23 AM »
INB4 the now disproved Bendy Light or Pizza Planet.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2011, 07:09:02 AM »
See Brother Noelkh's fantastic diagram proving how bendy light makes the moon appear round:

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2011, 07:12:55 AM »
Bendy light? Wasnīt it disproved and removed with Dark Energy crap?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2011, 07:17:37 AM »
Bendy light? Wasnīt it disproved and removed with Dark Energy crap?
To the contrary, the evidence for bendy light is so strong that it converted Brother Noelkh to FET.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2011, 07:44:06 AM »
See Brother Noelkh's fantastic diagram proving how bendy light makes the moon appear round:
[...]

Hahahahaha, that's a good one!

Wait, you're serious? Ooookaaaay... Well, let's assume that moonlight splits that way. There are two possibilities :

  • Either the moon light splits into an infinite number of bundles, each one allowing seeing the moon at another position on earth. Then the total  illuminating power (=energy/second) of the moon would be infinity times the minimum power to see the moon at a specific point. The moon must hence emit an infinite amount of energy per second, which is impossible.
  • Or the moon only emits light to where an observer is. Whereas this would solve the infinite poser problem, it would suppose that the moon is (a) intelligent and (b) really good at aiming at people.

I invite you to pick one: Is the moon intelligent, or does it emit an infinite amount of energy every second ?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 07:46:29 AM by Zogg »

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2011, 07:47:14 AM »
See Brother Noelkh's fantastic diagram proving how bendy light makes the moon appear round:
[...]

Well, let's assume that moonlight splits that way. There are two possibilities :

  • Either the moon light splits into an infinite number of bundles (like water from a watering can), each one allowing seeing the moon at another position on earth. Then the total  illuminating power (=energy/second) of the moon would be infinity times the minimum power to see the moon at a specific point. The moon must hence emit an infinite amount of energy per second, which is impossible.
  • Or the moon only emits light to where an observer is. Whereas this would solve the infinite poser problem, it would suppose that the moon is (a) intelligent and (b) really good at aiming at people.

I invite you to pick one: Is the moon intelligent, or does it emit an infinite amount of energy every second ?

In RET people see the moon from many places at once. Is the moon's energy infinite in RET?

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2011, 07:56:48 AM »
Also, RE moonlight does not multiplicates.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2011, 08:00:19 AM »
@Xenu : Maybe I was a bit hasty in my argumentation. But the point is, unlike in RET, all this light is "somehow" emitted into one single direction, resulting in a light beam of infinite intensity which "somehow" splits into an infinite number of beams. Light just doesn't work that way.

Besides, you can't just draw a diagram of light bending here and there as it pleases you, against all known laws of optics, without providing any laws how the light is bending and why. That's not science, that's pseudo-science.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2011, 08:03:02 AM »
@Xenu : Maybe I was a bit hasty in my argumentation. But the point is, unlike in RET, all this light is "somehow" emitted into one single direction, resulting in a light beam of infinite intensity which "somehow" splits into an infinite number of beams. Light just doesn't work that way.

Besides, you can't just draw a diagram of light bending here and there as it pleases you, against all known laws of optics, without providing any laws how the light is bending and why. That's not science, that's pseudo-science.

Nope, itīs just FET
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2011, 08:04:49 AM »
Bendy light? Wasnīt it disproved and removed with Dark Energy crap?

Yes.

I'd be interested to see how Xenu accounts for the distances between stars being constant regardless of their apparent altitude, because bendy light predicts it would vary proportionally to their height above the horizon.
Although I know perfectly well that Xenu will ignore this post.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2011, 08:07:41 AM »
Lord Xenu loves a good quote mine.  It's good to see that other people realize the purpose of my diagram, and that is to illustrate the impossible infinite split that bendy light would require.  Also, reports of my conversion have been greatly exaggerated.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2011, 08:14:16 AM »
@Xenu : Maybe I was a bit hasty in my argumentation. But the point is, unlike in RET, all this light is "somehow" emitted into one single direction, resulting in a light beam of infinite intensity which "somehow" splits into an infinite number of beams. Light just doesn't work that way.

Besides, you can't just draw a diagram of light bending here and there as it pleases you, against all known laws of optics, without providing any laws how the light is bending and why. That's not science, that's pseudo-science.
Ignore the annotation on that diagram. I believe that Brother Nolhekh is mistaken when he states that the light beams split. I believe that, while it is downward-travelling light that bends to cause an image of a circular moon when one is not directly beneath it, it is minor variations in the direction of individual photons that account for the huge number of directions from which the moon can be viewed.

The reason that the light is bending is the acceleration of the earth through space, a fact that is for discussion in one of the many other threads on the subject.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2011, 08:16:04 AM »
Bendy light? Wasnīt it disproved and removed with Dark Energy crap?

Yes.

I'd be interested to see how Xenu accounts for the distances between stars being constant regardless of their apparent altitude, because bendy light predicts it would vary proportionally to their height above the horizon.
Although I know perfectly well that Xenu will ignore this post.
Your problem is that you think of this issue in RE terms. I have not yet thought about this subject, but I will certainly consider it as an object of my future studies.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2011, 08:18:01 AM »
Bendy light? Wasnīt it disproved and removed with Dark Energy crap?

Yes.

I'd be interested to see how Xenu accounts for the distances between stars being constant regardless of their apparent altitude, because bendy light predicts it would vary proportionally to their height above the horizon.
Although I know perfectly well that Xenu will ignore this post.
Your problem is that you think of this issue in RE terms. I have not yet thought about this subject, but I will certainly consider it as an object of my future studies.

Translation: "I'm not going to ever address it because it would disprove bendy light and that's the only thing I know how to troll about".
BTW, what exactly do you mean by "thinking of the issue in RE terms"?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2011, 08:21:30 AM »
BTW, what exactly do you mean by "thinking of the issue in RE terms"?
For instance, you probably assume that stars are giant, distant balls of gas. I have not yet accepted this assertion. Until I have conducted experiments to decide the true nature of stars, I cannot address this point.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2011, 08:26:39 AM »
See Brother Noelkh's fantastic diagram proving how bendy light makes the moon appear round:
[...]

Well, let's assume that moonlight splits that way. There are two possibilities :

  • Either the moon light splits into an infinite number of bundles (like water from a watering can), each one allowing seeing the moon at another position on earth. Then the total  illuminating power (=energy/second) of the moon would be infinity times the minimum power to see the moon at a specific point. The moon must hence emit an infinite amount of energy per second, which is impossible.
  • Or the moon only emits light to where an observer is. Whereas this would solve the infinite poser problem, it would suppose that the moon is (a) intelligent and (b) really good at aiming at people.

I invite you to pick one: Is the moon intelligent, or does it emit an infinite amount of energy every second ?

In RET people see the moon from many places at once. Is the moon's energy infinite in RET?

Correct.  A parallax of 1.99 degrees is observed not counting the moon's change in orbital position.  This results in a 0.6 arc second movement of surface detail at the sides of the moon.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2011, 08:30:15 AM »
See Brother Noelkh's fantastic diagram proving how bendy light makes the moon appear round:
[...]

Well, let's assume that moonlight splits that way. There are two possibilities :

  • Either the moon light splits into an infinite number of bundles (like water from a watering can), each one allowing seeing the moon at another position on earth. Then the total  illuminating power (=energy/second) of the moon would be infinity times the minimum power to see the moon at a specific point. The moon must hence emit an infinite amount of energy per second, which is impossible.
  • Or the moon only emits light to where an observer is. Whereas this would solve the infinite poser problem, it would suppose that the moon is (a) intelligent and (b) really good at aiming at people.

I invite you to pick one: Is the moon intelligent, or does it emit an infinite amount of energy every second ?

In RET people see the moon from many places at once. Is the moon's energy infinite in RET?

Correct.  A parallax of 1.99 degrees is observed not counting the moon's change in orbital position.  This results in a 0.6 arc second movement of surface detail at the sides of the moon.
I thank you for once again lending your support to FET, Brother Nolhekh.  :)

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2011, 08:41:24 AM »
BTW, what exactly do you mean by "thinking of the issue in RE terms"?
For instance, you probably assume that stars are giant, distant balls of gas. I have not yet accepted this assertion. Until I have conducted experiments to decide the true nature of stars, I cannot address this point.

Neither the nature of the stars nor their distance affects the prediction by bendy light that the distances between them will vary proportional to height over the horizon. Bendy light claims this is the case for objects on the earth (boats on the horizon) and objects far away (the Moon, whatever distance you claim it is) so there is no basis for the stars being magically exempt. We know stars are further than the Moon, as we see it occult them.
Admit it, you have lost the argument for the existence of bendy light.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2011, 08:46:35 AM »
I think that you should discredit bendy light on the basis of stars without conducting proper investigation into them first.
Kay, sure... But I'm not 100% on the logic behind that. Could you enlighten me?

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2011, 08:59:50 AM »
May I humbly suggest the conception of "superbendy light" ? It goes like this : All light bends towards the ghost of Sir Samuel Birley Rowbotham who rotates in a height of 2000 miles above the earth, asks him where to bend to best confirm his theory, and then bends exactly there... This is just a little extrapolation of your principle "light bends such that it confirms the theory", and it would explain almost everything!  8)

[/irony]

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #21 on: October 16, 2011, 09:08:15 AM »
May I humbly suggest the conception of "superbendy light" ? It goes like this : All light bends towards the ghost of Sir Samuel Birley Rowbotham who rotates in a height of 2000 miles above the earth, asks him where to bend to best confirm his theory, and then bends exactly there... This is just a little extrapolation of your principle "light bends such that it confirms the theory", and it would explain almost everything!  8)

[/irony]

That is an absurd idea. Why you think I would believe such a thing is beyond me.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2011, 09:23:04 AM »
That is an absurd idea. Why you think I would believe such a thing is beyond me.

It's just an ironic extrapolation of the bendy light approach, which basically works as follows :

(1) FET says an object should be in direction X
(2) The observer actually sees the object in direction Y, bummer...
(3) Let's draw a curved line from the supposed position to the observer such that it matches with direction Y, claim that the light happens to follow this curve and label it "bendy light".

With this argumentation, you can put the celestial bodies wherever you want them to be - you can always bend the light such that the bodies are observed in the right direction.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2011, 09:39:40 AM »
That is an absurd idea. Why you think I would believe such a thing is beyond me.

It's just an ironic extrapolation of the bendy light approach, which basically works as follows :

(1) FET says an object should be in direction X
(2) The observer actually sees the object in direction Y, bummer...
(3) Let's draw a curved line from the supposed position to the observer such that it matches with direction Y, claim that the light happens to follow this curve and label it "bendy light".

With this argumentation, you can put the celestial bodies wherever you want them to be - you can always bend the light such that the bodies are observed in the right direction.
You are closed-minded, sir, and are too ignorant to have once questioned the RE brainwashing you have been fed from birth. I hope you fall off the ice wall.  >:(

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2011, 10:53:59 AM »
You are closed-minded, sir, and are too ignorant to have once questioned the RE brainwashing you have been fed from birth. I hope you fall off the ice wall.  >:(

That's an amusing example of a double fallacy. Not only that you resort to an argumentum ad hominem in lack of logical arguments, but also, your ad hominem argument is based on the very theory you are trying to prove.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2011, 10:57:13 AM »
You are closed-minded, sir, and are too ignorant to have once questioned the RE brainwashing you have been fed from birth. I hope you fall off the ice wall.  >:(

That's an amusing example of a double fallacy. Not only that you resort to an argumentum ad hominem in lack of logical arguments, but also, your ad hominem argument is based on the very theory you are trying to prove.
Your entire school of thought is based on your theory that the earth is round. What is your point?

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2011, 11:56:58 AM »
Your entire school of thought is based on your theory that the earth is round. What is your point?

You are mistaken, sir. My entire school of thought is based on observation, logic, mathematics and Occam's Razor. When I showed that your theory predicts that sunset happens 26° above the horizon, I did it only with basic trigonometry, without refering to RET. When I showed that in your theory, the moon would either appear elliptic or reveal a part of its far side, I didn't refer to RET either, did I?

Your only counter-argument was an obscure and vague ad-hoc hypothesis called "bendy light" which has never been clearly formalized and apparently states that the light goes where ever you want it to go. As long as you don't provide a clear scientific formulation of this "hypothesis", you can't expect any scientific mind to take it seriously. When I ironically put the finger on the fact that with such a rubber hypothesis you could actually justify everything, you eventually resorted to personal attacks, called me "closed-minded", speculated on me having been brain-washed and wished me a cold death.

Do you call this "science"?

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2011, 12:10:31 PM »
You are mistaken, sir. My entire school of thought is based on observation, logic, mathematics and Occam's Razor.
Have you observed the earth recently? It looks flat to me.
When I showed that your theory predicts that sunset happens 26° above the horizon, I did it only with basic trigonometry, without refering to RET. When I showed that in your theory, the moon would either appear elliptic or reveal a part of its far side, I didn't refer to RET either, did I?
All conventional modern science is based on aggressively globularist Round Earth Theory. Therefore, you refer to RET without even realising you are doing it.
Your only counter-argument was an obscure and vague ad-hoc hypothesis called "bendy light" which has never been clearly formalized and apparently states that the light goes where ever you want it to go. As long as you don't provide a clear scientific formulation of this "hypothesis", you can't expect any scientific mind to take it seriously.
Bendy light theory is a work in progress. However, you shouldn't cast doubts over its existence, since bendy light plays a large part in Round Earth science albeit renamed "refraction".

When I ironically put the finger on the fact that with such a rubber hypothesis you could actually justify everything, you eventually resorted to personal attacks, called me "closed-minded", speculated on me having been brain-washed and wished me a cold death.
'Twas very much justified.  8)

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2011, 12:32:13 PM »
Have you observed the earth recently? It looks flat to me.

Have you observed the clouds recently? They look like wads of cotton wool to me. Or sheep.

All conventional modern science is based on aggressively globularist Round Earth Theory. Therefore, you refer to RET without even realising you are doing it.

I used nothing but trigonometry. So what you are saying is that trigonometry is based on aggressively globularist Round Earth Theory?

Bendy light theory is a work in progress. However, you shouldn't cast doubts over its existence, since bendy light plays a large part in Round Earth science albeit renamed "refraction".

Athmospheric refraction is based on clearly defined formulae and bends the light by less than one degree. Bendy light theory is vague and should be able to bend light by at least 45° to make a moon seen by this angle appear circular.

'Twas very much justified.  8)

When in lack of arguments, name-calling is always a welcome diversion ;)



P.S.: On an unrelated topic, I like your alias. Hail Xenu! 8)

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: FET vs. observation: The shape of the moon
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2011, 01:07:57 PM »
I think that you should discredit bendy light on the basis of stars without conducting proper investigation into them first.
Kay, sure... But I'm not 100% on the logic behind that. Could you enlighten me?

You have already claimed ALL light is bendy. Stars emit light. You don't need to know anything at all about the nature of the star to know that. All photons of a specific energy are identical regardless of their source. Physics will affect two identical photons the same regardless if one comes from a star and the other a handheld torch.
So there's the logic, if you want to disagree with anything I've said there, go right ahead.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.