Earth shadows show a small Sun and concave Earth.

Yup, this isn't regular stupid. This is advanced stupid. First of all, there wouldn't BE an Earth-cast shadow in your idea at all.

Arrant nonsense.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 01, 2014, 11:22:13 AM

Arrant nonsense.

I hate to interrupt your babbling, but would you care to actually make some kind of point?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 01, 2014, 11:22:13 AM

Arrant nonsense.

I hate to interrupt your babbling, but would you care to actually make some kind of point?

I was looking at these shadows and noticed that there is no possible way these would actually work if Earth was shaped like a globe and the Sun was actually bigger then Earth...

Quote from: Sculelos on August 31, 2014, 08:36:15 PM

I was looking at these shadows and noticed that there is no possible way these would actually work if Earth was shaped like a globe and the Sun was actually bigger then Earth...

There is no "if" or "was actually" in your first statement.

The earth is spherical and the sun is bigger than the earth.  No amount of fanciful Photoshopped images will change that.  In fact I'm not quite sure why you repeatedly post these sorts of bizarre, incomprehensible diagrams founded on nothing more than some sort of Tolkienish imagination you seem to possess.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on October 08, 2012, 06:36:59 PM

Actually the large terminator is more in line with a flat Earth than a round one.

"Actually the large terminator is more in line with a flat Earth than a round one."

Flatorange: the map you show is a map of sunlight hitting a round earth in the winter months.  Hence more shadow hitting the north pole and more sunlight hitting the south pole.  Any time you take a round map and make it flat you get distortions.  Instead of trying to prove something wrong that is obviously true.  Why don't you do your own experiments at home.  You will quickly find that the maps shown for light vs dark areas are in fact, correct.

P.S. - Not really sure how any of you FE'ers can try to argue on these maps.  You don't even have a map for your supposed flat earth!  With no map, you have no starting point for calculations to figure out your hypothetical made up answers.  If you're going to try and BS people.  At least put some effort into it please.   

Instead of trying to prove something wrong that is obviously true.  Why don't you do your own experiments at home.  You will quickly find that the maps shown for light vs dark areas are in fact, correct.

Well one of my points that I never stated in this thread was about the day itself. For example I had a 14 hour day where I live that would imply 70% Sunlight but I checked and this map checked today by satellite only shows 52-55% sunlight depending on angle.

I think both of these things are probably that:
A: Light shrinks over distance and slows down as well.

The mass is simply so dense that light takes 7 days or 112 trillion Earth mass miles to penetrate the entirety of space.

15 hours 31 minutes at 23.4 degrees of inclination 44.28 degrees north. 66.6 degrees north is where permanent daylight would happen so you should have 67% daylight which would be 16 hours 5 minutes assuming Earth spins. This means my calculations are about 3.652% off or about 23 degrees off when corrected for Earth's whole which shows Earth is not tilting at all because the heavens are not fixed to the ground they are not bound by the exact rotation Earth physically would be.

As for not being able to see how tilt effects rotation. I'm sorry that was stupid of me as I can easily see how it would effect rotation after I modeled it but I noticed that daylight times still don't show any tilt to Earth physically and only show that the heavens are rotating inside the Earth which is why we have a total of 3.652% error or 23 degrees of error this is because Earth isn't physically moving so you have no latitude shift which would be the only difference you could physically spot.

If Heavens are moving inside the Earth then you see no latitude shift as the land doesn't move and because the Earth would be concave the movement of the heavens would be locked to Earth making the universe look flat when viewed from Earth so because Earth and the Heavens would be locked together you would see no latitude shift showing about 3.65% error. If the Earth was physically moving you would see a slight elongation of daylight in summer and shortening of days in winter, but the only difference is that 3.65% error as if Earth is concave then the heavens inside would appear convex so they would offset each other where is if Earth is convex and the heavens are basically flat then you would see the difference in day would effect the Earth.

Yes Macpie and Sokarul I seen the error in my tilt and fixed it however when trying to match up day-time with Earth spin I was given a 3.65% error or 23 degrees which shows no Earth movement in relation to the Heavens.

As for light shrinking, because light is a mass-less medium it propagates and binds itself to take upon the mass of whatever it travels through but because it takes upon the mass of the medium it passes through it also takes upon the density of the medium it passes through and because space is literally filled with tons of mass or dark matter it absorbs the energy reflected from the Earth and thus light and miles shrink down when you get close to an area that absorbed this matter inside inner space you start to increase in size so you get bigger. So on the Moon you actually grow in size quite a bit bigger then Earth when you are on the Moon I believe you are somewhat below sea level though although I'm not sure the exact amount before you hit a solid layer of ground. Ground is where your energy equalizes with the pressure below you. The Heavens are literally a separation and copy of Earth's layers into a enormous amount of mass. The mass is simply so dense that light takes 7 days or 112 trillion Earth mass miles to penetrate the entirety of space. Our measurements are quite a bit off when saying the size of the universe because light is not consistent as light slows down considerably when it encounters objects of higher mass and plus light takes reflects the energy of that which it penetrates but it takes considerable amounts of energy to penetrate deep into an object.

Hope that gives you an idea how the vastness of space could fit inside a concave Earth.

Yeah I'm aware that there is always a tilt. Some things we see in the sky don't make any sense though on a convex Earth,

like the Moon for example. How is it that at noon time the Moon appears like this when the Sun is overhead and the Moon is around 20 degrees high in the sky it would make sense that we would see like the lower 60% in shadow, not the left 47%.

Now if the Earth was concave it would make more sense as the Moon is following behind the Sun so the Sun would be more west then the east moon so it's rays would hit the Moon mostly from the east side or right side and because the heavens are only 3960 earth mass miles deep and the Sun, Moon and Earth are all the same size but you can only see 1/12th and of that you only see 59 of 60 parts but yet even though apparent size is much smaller the actual physical reality of seeing 98.563% of half one side remains.

TLDR: Moon in 70 degrees East Sky (20 degrees above horizon) shows west shadow when Sun is directly overhead about 70 degrees westward of Moon (directly between east and west). If Sun was really 93 Million miles away then Moon shadow should be overhead as well and because we would be under the moon we should see more of the shadow. In my scenario above this is predicted outcome vs reality.

The lit up side of the moon is always facing to the sun. This is why all full moons are at night.  A concave moon would not work as people on opposite sides of the planet will not see the same moon. When you see the moon set, it will be rising for someone else.  How do you think round earth ideas don't make sense and then claim the moon is concave?

Everything we see in the sky makes sense on a convex earth.  Most things we see in the sky make sense only on a convex spheroidal earth.

If the sun is nearly overhead while the moon is 20 degrees above the horizon, then the moon will be a crescent, which means it's less than half illuminated, and the lower part is in shadow.  Why do you think the left part would be? The photos on the bottom aren't of a moon of that age. Nor is it 20 degrees above the horizon unless the photo is rotated so that the top of the picture isn't up (unless taken from a very high northern latitude, in which case the sun can't be anywhere near overhead).

This makes no sense whatsoever.

In your scenario, we're not "under" the moon. Remember, it's 20 degrees above the horizon, which means 70 degrees east of the zenith; we're "under" it when it's near the zenith, right?? If I misunderstand, what do you mean by "under"?

Reality shows a moon more than 70 degrees from the sun! In fact, this picture shows a moon more than 90 degrees from the sun.  You can tell just from the picture because more than 50% is lit.

Quote from: sokarul on September 05, 2014, 12:28:40 PM

The lit up side of the moon is always facing to the sun. This is why all full moons are at night.  A concave moon would not work as people on opposite sides of the planet will not see the same moon. When you see the moon set, it will be rising for someone else.  How do you think round earth ideas don't make sense and then claim the moon is concave?

Of course the lit up side is always facing the Sun. However that was not the point I was making, the point I was making is that at high noon where the Sun is directly overhead and the Moon is 70 degrees east in the sky that the Moon shadow should be on the lower half of the moon not on the west side of the moon.

You have no response to my claim that a concave moon couldn't exist people people watching the moon rise would see something different then people watching a moon set?

Quote from: sokarul on September 05, 2014, 09:45:38 PM

You have no response to my claim that a concave moon couldn't exist people people watching the moon rise would see something different then people watching a moon set?

Well my official response to that is that planets are more a form of Earth elevation maps then anything else. Close side would most likely be higher then sea level with far side lower then sea level. So high side goes up, low side goes down. Because the Moon is probably tied to elevation it would not change much, something like the Sun we might see apparent movement because it's probably tied to something like heat maps instead.

As for a visualization of what the shadows on the close side of the Moon might represent this is an idea:

I asked how people looking at the moon at the same time in different parts of the world see the moon roughly the same. You did not address this.

Quote from: sokarul on September 06, 2014, 09:48:26 AM

I asked how people looking at the moon at the same time in different parts of the world see the moon roughly the same. You did not address this.

Moon is equal but opposite to Earth so Moon layer in Heavens is convex yet Earth is concave and Moon always has one side facing Earth and light only travels in one direction which is away from Earth or to Earth but light only travels in 90 degree angles maximum so you can only see Moon 14/28 days of it's cycle but when you do see it you will always see the same side. If it was possible to see the non-illuminated part you would see the dark side of the Moon but light doesn't reach us from that angle so it's impossible to see the farside from Earth as you can never see the farside illuminated from Earth as it's light never reaches Earth.