At sceptimatic's request...

Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation (light with a longer wavelength than the human eye can see). The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.

Easy, sceptimatic, no reason to to be condescending. I'm not attacking you.
And looking up thermal radiation will do me no good, since I already know what it encompasses. What I stated is exactly what science states thermal radiation to be, so I do not understand your request? If there is something specific you have in mind, I'll gladly review it.

So anyway, lets keep it sober and friendly yes?
If the sun is not in a vacuum, I can only assume it must be in our atmosphere according to you, right? What altitude would that approximately be? Because either the atmosphere is extremely thick on the flat earth, or the sun is extremely small compared to common belief.

There is severe flaws in Flat Earth theory as well as Geocentrism and Heliocentrism. To be honest though there is almost no agreement whatsoever to how a flat Earth and universe would work. I personally do not believe it to be flat, I think it's concave and we are inside the Earth, in fact I have a pretty comprehensive idea to how my Celiocentric (heaven centered) model works however I find FE models to be incomplete and deeply flawed. However the same thing can be said about the Heliocentric and Geocentric models as they are also deeply flawed. 

Hmm, interesting. Do you have a thread anywere on here, with further explanations?

Quote from: Dr Eric Christian

Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation (light with a longer wavelength than the human eye can see). The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.

No heat travels through a vacuum. No light, no nothing. I don't care what the laughable bullc rappers say. It's not happening.

Easy, sceptimatic, no reason to to be condescending. I'm not attacking you.
And looking up thermal radiation will do me no good, since I already know what it encompasses. What I stated is exactly what science states thermal radiation to be, so I do not understand your request? If there is something specific you have in mind, I'll gladly review it.

So anyway, lets keep it sober and friendly yes?
If the sun is not in a vacuum, I can only assume it must be in our atmosphere according to you, right? What altitude would that approximately be? Because either the atmosphere is extremely thick on the flat earth, or the sun is extremely small compared to common belief.

No altitude. It's a reflection. If you need to know anything else about this then type into the search function, 'sceptimatics theory' and discuss it there if you feel you want to.

No altitude. It's a reflection. If you need to know anything else about this then type into the search fuction, sceptimatics theory and discuss it there if you feel you want to.

Alright.

No heat travels through a vacuum. No light, no nothing. I don't care what the laughable bullc rappers say. It's not happening.

So, in your opinion does the intensity of perceived light fade, as the pressure of the medium in which it travels through is lowered? With complete darkness at vacuum?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 10:58:55 AM

No altitude. It's a reflection. If you need to know anything else about this then type into the search fuction, sceptimatics theory and discuss it there if you feel you want to.

Alright.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 10:54:49 AM

No heat travels through a vacuum. No light, no nothing. I don't care what the laughable bullc rappers say. It's not happening.

So, in your opinion does the intensity of perceived light fade, as the pressure of the medium in which it travels through is lowered? With complete darkness at vacuum?

Read through ' sceptimatics theory' and when you've done that you will have a good idea of my mindset. From that point on you can ask me anything and you can pick at it or whatever, just do it in that thread if you don't mind.

I tried searching "sceptimatics theory" but the only thing that came up was this thread. Can you please link to your theory write up?

I tried searching "sceptimatics theory" but the only thing that came up was this thread. Can you please link to your theory write up?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 27, 2014, 08:47:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 08:21:27 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 27, 2014, 07:28:20 AM

At this point may I make a suggestion that could help get us back on track? In my view, when you present a procedure/piece of equipment etc, saying that you don't believe something could work is not the same as showing why it should not be possible. I can only speak for myself when I say that I have looked at every photo/video etc that you have posted. However, it does seem that when presented with a lengthy article that addresses or explains points you queried, you reply with such speed that it shows you maybe don't even read what is presented as a counter argument. Just a possibility. The next logical step in a measured debate would be to address the counter argument and drill down further into the statements, diagrams or figures you still dispute. If we can all adhere to this then maybe we can put and end to the constant childish bickering from both sides which should be embarrassing to everyone involved. Any thoughts?

Yeah, just one thing to add.
When I give you my thoughts and answers. Treat them as answers before going off on one, just because it doesn't suit you.
If you think I'm wrong, then tell me I'm wrong and show me why.
If I come back at you, then prove me wrong again and so on.
If I keep coming back and you can't seem to shake me off, then either give up and accept that I'm not going to back down or keep plugging away.
Once you get frustrated, try not to descend into a silly rant at me, because as you've seen; there's only going to be one winner.
Take that as arrogance or how you want to, I'm easy, either way.

Don't be so arrogant as to tell me  you know what you're talking about and in the same breath tell me I'm arrogant and no nothing, because that's a loss to you and a big smile to me.
If you want to be treated properly, then afford the same thing. If not, then don't whine about it. Fair enough?

Just coming back in because of this.  See bolded.  When you come back and just proclaim that its all "claptrap" and we are nothing but "shills", it really isn't countering anything.

Correct it isn't. No more than what you lot spend half your time saying to me. Don't give it out and you won't receive it. It's simple really.

And please show me where I "gave it out" as you say?  This is the first interaction between you and me in this thread.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:00:44 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 06:43:59 AM

@Tappet

It seems that you are missing the key difference between the moon and the earth.  The atmosphere.  The moon lacks any significant atmosphere while the earth has a thick atmosphere.  The dust on the moon falls faster because there is no significant air resistance or wind.  Where as the dust on earth is getting blown around and has to overcome the air resistance of the atmosphere.

The video I posted shows the effect of this by dropping coins and feathers in a chamber.  Initially, the coins float down and the coins drop fast.  After they evacuate the air, or most of it, out of the chamber, the coins and feathers drop at the same rate.

Don't forget, you are also using your gravity ruse at one sixth, so what's it to be. A fast fall or a slow fall? A high jump or a low jump? A soft landing or a hard landing?

What do any of those things have to do with the effect of air resistance on a falling object?

Tappet was speciffically asking why the dust from the rover fell faster than dust does on earth.  I gave him an explination.  So do  you want to give me reasons why my explination is inadequate, or just go off on tangents?

In this, you called my video showing a feather and coins falling at the same rate in a near vacuum a ruse.  I asked you to explain why saying that lack of air resistance caused it.  So tell me, who started just dismissing ideas outright without any explanation?

Also, show me where I have attacked you personally in this thread.  Even though I have been called a shill numerous times.  Please show me.

You presented "evidence" of the "rover" still packaged yet having tire tracks.  It was shown to you that it wasn't the rover at all that was still packaged up.  You totally dismissed it.

You presented a photograph with two astronauts in a reflection.  You were shown the photo from NASA's own site that only has one reflection.  You were also shown how the photo with two reflections in it was made.  You dismissed it as "obviously, NASA cut the other guy out"

You have not shown the sources of any of your photographs.  You upload all of them to imageshack.  Every photo I have posted has been a direct link from the website I found it on.  I asked if you could reveal the source of your photos.  This was ignored.

You wanted to know how it was possible that all these steps could possibly go right to get to the moon.  Your argument, from what I understood, was that it is just too complicated.  I responded with the example of the complexity of an everyday object.  The car.

So please.  If you expect people to take you seriously, show them some respect when debating.  Using words with negative connotations such as "shill" "actornaut" and others when trying to make a point really lessens the impact. 

You presented "evidence" of the "rover" still packaged yet having tire tracks.  It was shown to you that it wasn't the rover at all that was still packaged up.  You totally dismissed it.

No I didn't. Look back. I said I will accept it for now until I look at it all.

You presented a photograph with two astronauts in a reflection.  You were shown the photo from NASA's own site that only has one reflection.  You were also shown how the photo with two reflections in it was made.  You dismissed it as "obviously, NASA cut the other guy out"

I didn't dismiss it. I said that EITHER could be fake.

You have not shown the sources of any of your photographs.  You upload all of them to imageshack.  Every photo I have posted has been a direct link from the website I found it on.  I asked if you could reveal the source of your photos.  This was ignored.

Does it really matter? Either one could be fake, that's why I'm not pursuing it.

You wanted to know how it was possible that all these steps could possibly go right to get to the moon.  Your argument, from what I understood, was that it is just too complicated.  I responded with the example of the complexity of an everyday object.  The car.

Using an Earth based, easily viewable car is a far cry from crappy video evidence and diagrams of something we cannot directly test out or even view in real time, except to look at mock up models. A massive diffrence and you know it.

So please.  If you expect people to take you seriously, show them some respect when debating.  Using words with negative connotations such as "shill" "actornaut" and others when trying to make a point really lessens the impact.

Don't you ask me to show people respect who's only goal is to attempt ridicule. 
If you crave respect, then earn it. Personally I don't give a rats bum cheeks what you lot think of me...but I will gladly afford you a decent reply on the back of a decent post, no problem.


What you fail to grasp is, I am one person typing back to a hoard of have a go heroes, intent on doing a backslapping relay post.
Even after all the attempted ridicule by that method got them nowhere, other than to cry foul the very second I mildly dug back.
The crying was pitiful.
Play the game and it will be fairly played back, it's as simple as that. 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 15, 2014, 11:49:50 AM

Errm, the first video seems to be good evidence of a round earth.  The only way to recover the hull of the ship was to increase elevation - this is exactly what round earth would predict.  I think you are a bit confused.

All that Apollo crap has been debunked endlessly on threads all over the internet, I can't be bothered debating it.

You were meant to provide evidence of a flat earth, even if the Apollo landings were faked, it is not evidence of a flat earth.

Exactly what I expected. 5 seconds to look at them and 1 minute to reply in exactly the manner I was expecting, without even giving it a thought.
You asked for evidence, I gave it. You chose to discard it and want better evidence.
What do you want?
What possible evidence do you want that can be physically got to prove it to you?
I'll answer that for you. The answer is, there is no evidence available or ever will be, that will make you detract from the brainwashing you have been subjected to. Nothing!

I done my part, so I'm happy enough with it.

See what happened the first time someone had a different view than you Scepti?  You accused him of not watching the video.  You made assumptions of their open mindedness.  And then you accused them of being brainwashed.

Hardly giving the guy a fair shake now isn't it?

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 27, 2014, 03:51:14 AM

I suppose this could never fly then?


I mean, it's just some rickety wood and fabric thing made in the very early 1900's.

What a weak come back.

I was just showing you how weak your favourite comeback - the appeal to ridicule - really is. It seems to be the only comeback you are capable of since, as you clearly lack any understanding of physics, chemistry, or engineering of any kind, you cannot actually give any genuine reason why any of the technology used in the moon landings would not have worked in the manner it was stated to. The best you can do is:

This is the piece of crap craft they said landed on the moon...

So, in your opinion does the intensity of perceived light fade, as the pressure of the medium in which it travels through is lowered? With complete darkness at vacuum?

Just so you know what to expect as you are new here;
 
Sceptimatic believes light and sound are the same thing and propagate by the same means,
 
-rockets work because the colder air below the nozzle moves in to fight with the hotter air coming out thus pushing it upward,
 
-the air pressure inside and outside an inflated tire are equal,

-when accelerating in a vehicle you are pushed back into the seat because the air is pushing against you,

-planes can only fly one direction on a rotating globe,

-real images are photoshopped, and photoshopped images are real,

-you feel like you're getting heavier as you climb stairs, not because your legs are getting tired, but because there's an increase downward atmospheric force on you,

-some others I don't recall at the moment

- there's no empty space between atoms or molecules.
 
-and there's even this gem from page two of this thread...

Thinking it's because the ship is going down a curve is head scratching for why people would even dare think it, unless it was a water fall. Is it a water fall at the horizon? If not, then there's no curve.

And very rarely will he change view on anything once his mind is made up. 

Also, replies need to be at a 5 year old level of understanding.  Have fun!

What he is trying to say is that there are some FE'ers react like this:
1. Strap their ass in a Soyuz capsule on a Russian R-7 rocket and send him to the ISS.
2. He would puke up for the first hour. (70% due).
3. Leave him there for 3 months in o gravity.
4. bring him back on the Soyuz capsule.
5. He won't be able to walk for a bit.
6. The next day he will claim he was drug and brainwashed and all his episode never happened.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 27, 2014, 09:45:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 01:09:32 AM

If only we were experts in EVERYTHING known to man like you round earthers, eh?

I wish.

Quote

I think I'll spend the next 500 years of my life reading up on absolutely everything so I can converse better with all you round earthers. 

Or just research the topics you pretend to understand.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 01:01:18 AM

Telling me that I put fake pictures up and making out that your pictures are the real ones is laughable. I don't know what pictures are real or fake. I'm putting them up to be looked at.

And according the following guidelines;

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2013, 02:13:06 AM

It takes an unbiased in depth critical analysis of all footage and pictures,

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2014, 02:51:51 AM

I thought the purpose of this thread was to ALL have a look at potential discrepabcies more critically.

We did what you wanted. 


However, for all your fist-pounding about "critical in-depth analysis, etc" and "not going into immediate _____ mode", we have the following;

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 01:01:18 AM

All people need to do is to look at the cardboard, paper, sticky tape and foil lunar lander that supposedly landed on the moon. This is all anyone should need to look at

So what happened to the "critical in-depth" stuff.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 23, 2014, 04:53:31 PM

Yes, that's right...but considering I was asking for people to take a critical look and not to go into immediate debunk mode, I think you have just failed miserably.

All we ask is that you take a critical look and not go into immediate conspiracy mode, but you seem to have failed miserably.

I've spent years, bit by bit, taking a critical look at it all, from both sides and my conclusion is that it was ALL faked. Every last bit of it.
Why would Gus Grissoms son and wife say he was murdered? What about all the accidents of many of the people involved in all that stuff? Coincidence?
You know exactly what I'm talking about.

What a wasted life.. but no doubt incapable of much anyway.

Hi, I'm new here. I registered because there are, IMO, serious flaws in the FE theory that I thought could be interesting to clear up in a nice scientific debate.
However this disturbs me:

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 05:43:23 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 27, 2014, 05:35:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 04:50:32 AM

Space is neither hot or cold as we are told, so therefore we can only assume that the body heat of the actornauts will heat up inside the craft and is insulted in a vacuum, so no escape from the build up of heat, not to mention all the electronics running.
If it's to stop the sun heating it up, well, turkeys don't fare too well in ovens when foil covered.
Anyone for baked actornauts? Leg or breast?

This is all completely wrong.  Of course heat can radiate off into space.

A vacuum is a perfect insulator. No heat dissipation there my friend.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 27, 2014, 06:04:41 AM

The sun cannot radiate anything through a vacuum. It's the whole reason why there is no sun in space...but let's not argue this because it's going to come right down to the flat versus globe argument.

This has me believing that a healthy scientific debate is all but an illusion. Because, in all seriousness if you ignore simple laws of nature and physics, and render empirical results of every single scientific study obsolete (that can, in this case, be proven by kids in elementary school), then what you are left with is a fantasy world where everything is possible. Making statements such as yours, sceptimatic, makes a debate completely useless, and I fail to see the point in this entire forum?

Thermal radiation is a mass-less electromagnetic wave that will propagate perfectly through a vacuum. If you believe the sun is in a vacuum, then by your statemement, there can be no light or heat/life on earth, since visible light and infrared (i.e. heat) are the same waves, with different wavelengths.

Is every proponent of a flat earth with the same believe as you, sceptimatic? I'm asking because I'm genuinely interested, not as a mockery. If the answer is yes, then I am... disappointed, at best.

By now you might be wondering what the fuck have I got yourself into. This forum is nothing more than an electronic version of a mental asylum..

Skepti being one of the sicker, sculelos equal to him.. they have the most crack pot, loony, bonkers and barking mad ideas I have ever heard and get abusive if you ask for evidence.

As you've seen, Skepti just changes the laws of nature to suit his school boy plays - the sun isn't in a vacuum.. maybe the sun doesn't exist at all?!  Some of think the suns only 3000 miles away for gods sake.

Good luck, but I tried to keep my cool and I just couldn't.. pity because there are rally nice people in here.. who are firmly planted in reality and only here for the debate.

Here's something for all you right minded thinking people. You know! The ones that can actually think for themselves.

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.
 
Ok, that being said; think about this: Go and look at any moon landing picture that you want to and you will notice that it's DARK and all you see are spot light lit surfaces in them.
When you look at the spotlight lit surfaces, think about the GLOWING moon you see with your own eyes on Earth.

We know that the actornauts were on the part of the  moon that faces the Earth, as N.A.S.A shows us in their amazing photo's. 
We also know that the moon faces the Earth from one side only at ALL times.
If the moon landing happened and the moon is what it is, then your logic and common sense should immediately tell you that the actornauts should, at ALL times be lit up like beacons.

I'll repeat: Take a look at the moon and see how brightly it's lit. There should not be spot light sun spots, it should be so bright that it would be blinding at best and basically turn the actornauts into crispy bacon at worst.
Don't listen to the bull crap that the moon has no atmosphere and so it doesn't scatter light. Once again, "take a look at the brightly lit moon."

Here's something for all you right minded thinking people. You know! The ones that can actually think for themselves.

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.
 
Ok, that being said; think about this: Go and look at any moon landing picture that you want to and you will notice that it's DARK and all you see are spot light lit surfaces in them.
When you look at the spotlight lit surfaces, think about the GLOWING moon you see with your own eyes on Earth.

We know that the actornauts were on the part of the  moon that faces the Earth, as N.A.S.A shows us in their amazing photo's. 
We also know that the moon faces the Earth from one side only at ALL times.
If the moon landing happened and the moon is what it is, then your logic and common sense should immediately tell you that the actornauts should, at ALL times be lit up like beacons.

I'll repeat: Take a look at the moon and see how brightly it's lit. There should not be spot light sun spots, it should be so bright that it would be blinding at best and basically turn the actornauts into crispy bacon at worst.
Don't listen to the bull crap that the moon has no atmosphere and so it doesn't scatter light. Once again, "take a look at the brightly lit moon."

So just briefly, you don't agree with this:

Lunar dust reflects light in a manner similar to street signs or
wet grass – a significant amount
of light is reflected back at the
light source (the Sun in this case)
instead of being scattered in all
directions as Earth sand would do.This can be observed on Earth, as it explains why the full
Moon is much more than twice as bright as a half Moon. This effect explains hot spots in
photos that contain the
photographer's own shadow.

Funny how every scepti thread turns into an absolute train wreck.

it
should be so bright that it would be
blinding at best and basically turn the
actornauts into crispy bacon at worst.

Not long ago you stated that neither light nor heat can pass through a vacuum, now you seem to insist that both should to such a degree that they would fry the astronauts. So which one is it? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 12:58:14 AM

Here's something for all you right minded thinking people. You know! The ones that can actually think for themselves.

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.
 
Ok, that being said; think about this: Go and look at any moon landing picture that you want to and you will notice that it's DARK and all you see are spot light lit surfaces in them.
When you look at the spotlight lit surfaces, think about the GLOWING moon you see with your own eyes on Earth.

We know that the actornauts were on the part of the  moon that faces the Earth, as N.A.S.A shows us in their amazing photo's. 
We also know that the moon faces the Earth from one side only at ALL times.
If the moon landing happened and the moon is what it is, then your logic and common sense should immediately tell you that the actornauts should, at ALL times be lit up like beacons.

I'll repeat: Take a look at the moon and see how brightly it's lit. There should not be spot light sun spots, it should be so bright that it would be blinding at best and basically turn the actornauts into crispy bacon at worst.
Don't listen to the bull crap that the moon has no atmosphere and so it doesn't scatter light. Once again, "take a look at the brightly lit moon."

So just briefly, you don't agree with this:

Quote

Lunar dust reflects light in a manner similar to street signs or
wet grass – a significant amount
of light is reflected back at the
light source (the Sun in this case)
instead of being scattered in all
directions as Earth sand would do.This can be observed on Earth, as it explains why the full
Moon is much more than twice as bright as a half Moon. This effect explains hot spots in
photos that contain the
photographer's own shadow.

Read what I said and absorb it. Don't look for the answers that are obviously given out to sway peoples minds away. Look at what I've just typed and use your own brain to see what I'm saying.

Funny how every scepti thread turns into an absolute train wreck.

Yep! They usually do by people like you typing things like this.
I notice you have no answer to what I put. I didn't expect you would.

Quote from: sceptimatic

it
should be so bright that it would be
blinding at best and basically turn the
actornauts into crispy bacon at worst.

Not long ago you stated that neither light nor heat can pass through a vacuum, now you seem to insist that both should to such a degree that they would fry the astronauts. So which one is it?

Let's not change the subject. You know my thoughts on vacuums. This isn't my thoughts on vacuums; this is N.A.S.A garbage on it all, so I have to go with their bull crap to make people understand just how fake it all is.
Your attempts to derail this are not going to work.

That reflective moon dust is tasty too.
When I was a kid we used to buy moon rocks and moon dust to eat.
NASA will not be getting those moon rocks back.

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.

You're in England, yes? Have a look tonight and tell me if the moon is out, because it isn't here. I could stay up all night tonight and not see the moon at all. So, by your reasoning, given that "it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world", if I can't see it in Australia, then you should be able to see it in England, right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 12:58:14 AM

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.

You're in England, yes? Have a look tonight and tell me if the moon is out, because it isn't here. I could stay up all night tonight and not see the moon at all. So, by your reasoning, given that "it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world", if I can't see it in Australia, then you should be able to see it in England, right?

Let me make myself clear. I'll do it slowly so we don't get mixed up.

Somebody on Earth will always be able to see a glowing moon. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 28, 2014, 02:12:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 12:58:14 AM

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.

You're in England, yes? Have a look tonight and tell me if the moon is out, because it isn't here. I could stay up all night tonight and not see the moon at all. So, by your reasoning, given that "it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world", if I can't see it in Australia, then you should be able to see it in England, right?

Let me make myself clear. I'll do it slowly so we don't get mixed up.

Somebody on Earth will always be able to see a glowing moon. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Nope, not tonight. Tonight is within a day or two of the "new moon" phase, which means that no-one, anywhere on Earth, will be able to see the moon tonight. The RE explanation is simple enough, but I have yet to see a good FE explanation for why this happens.

Somebody on Earth will always be able to see a glowing moon. Do you agree? If not, why not?

False. In its orbit around the Earth the Moon is only seen at night when it is on the 'night' side of the Earth: the side of the Earth that is in shadow. At some part of its orbit it is on the 'day' side of the Earth. When it is there the people on the day side can't see it because the light of the sun is too bright and overpowers any light from the moon just as the sun overpowers the lights of the stars. The people on the night side can't see it because it is on the other side of the Earth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 02:23:22 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 28, 2014, 02:12:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 12:58:14 AM

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.

You're in England, yes? Have a look tonight and tell me if the moon is out, because it isn't here. I could stay up all night tonight and not see the moon at all. So, by your reasoning, given that "it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world", if I can't see it in Australia, then you should be able to see it in England, right?

Let me make myself clear. I'll do it slowly so we don't get mixed up.

Somebody on Earth will always be able to see a glowing moon. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Nope, not tonight. Tonight is within a day or two of the "new moon" phase, which means that no-one, anywhere on Earth, will be able to see the moon tonight. The RE explanation is simple enough, but I have yet to see a good FE explanation for why this happens.

So, if nobody can see the moon, anywhere on Earth, then tell me! Where does the moon go? Does it just take a trip somewhere or does it fold up? Hide behind a rock? What?

Just tell me where it goes so that NOBODY on Earth can see it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 02:23:22 AM

Somebody on Earth will always be able to see a glowing moon. Do you agree? If not, why not?

False. In its orbit around the Earth the Moon is only seen at night when it is on the 'night' side of the Earth: the side of the Earth that is in shadow. At some part of its orbit it is on the 'day' side of the Earth. When it is there the people on the day side can't see it because the light of the sun is too bright and overpowers any light from the moon just as the sun overpowers the lights of the stars. The people on the night side can't see it because it is on the other side of the Earth.

Ok, I'll have to explain it carefully for you.

Let's use your globe so that we don't get mixed up.

Imagine that I put a person on every part of your globe, on every available foot, ok?
Now at least one person at any time is going to see a glowing moon. Not the same person all of the time, I'm talking about any one person will see a glowing moon somewhere on Earth. Do you understand now?