About that shadow object

  • 89 Replies
  • 13962 Views
*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2014, 08:09:14 AM »
I said I do not agree with everything in the wiki.  In several articles, two or three different explanations are given.  I could not possibly think that all of the explanations could all possibly be true.  However, the wiki does do, for the most part, a good job of admitting that there are several different beliefs, and that is why it offers more than one explanation.  What exactly is your problem with this?  I can tell you are trying to bait me into something.
So you're now agreeing—in effect—that rather than being a collection of empirical scientific truths, your FEW is simply a collection of different people's opinions?  And that some are correct, whilst others are not?  And that the FEW only does a "good" job of explaining flat earth science, but not an exemplary one—as do all the "round earth" science text books.  Millions of them propose the round earth theories in total agreement; from thousands of scientists across hundreds of countries, whereas only one book of doubtful factual correctness exists to support the flat earth model.

And it's not me that has any "problem" with the FEW jroa;  it seems to me to be a problem for you.    ::)

Finally, if your FEW is such an important document for flat earth theory, why is it that I can't find it in my council library?  Why is it not also in the Library of Congress catalogue if it's so important?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2014, 08:17:11 AM »
Argumentum ad numerum is not a valid form of debating.

Totally agree jroa..... IF the numbers were 5,000 versus 500, but in the round earth v. flat earth scenario, they're 7,000,000,000 versus 500.

Can you not see the obvious difference?  Or do you seriously believe that every one of those 7 billion people is wrong?


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2014, 08:25:57 AM »
Do you not understand that the majority of people can be wrong, and in fact, have historically been wrong in the past? 

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2014, 08:32:47 AM »
Do you not understand that the majority of people can be wrong, and in fact, have historically been wrong in the past?
That does not prove the minority view is always right.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2014, 08:41:19 AM »
Do you not understand that the majority of people can be wrong, and in fact, have historically been wrong in the past?
That does not prove the minority view is always right.

No, just as the numbers do not prove the majority right, either.  Do you not understand the words that you are reading? 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2014, 08:50:02 AM »
Do you not understand that the majority of people can be wrong, and in fact, have historically been wrong in the past?

Well, this is a bold move jroa...

You're now apparently claiming that all those 7 billion people who accept the spherical earth model could be wrong?  You see it as a distinct possibility do you?  But doesn't that seem extremely illogical to you, even considering Occam's Razor for example.

Could you also cite references to support your claim that the vast majority have been wrong in the past?  I don't doubt it for a moment, but I'd be interested to see what examples you come up with.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2014, 08:56:28 AM »
The majority of Romans were fine with slavery.  Did that make slavery right in their time?

The majority of Germans pre-WWII thought Nazism was right and that the Jews were destroying the country.  Does that mean that they were right?

A few hundred years ago, the majority of people believed that blood letting could balance the humors and cure all kinds of sicknesses.  Does that mean they were right? 

The ancient Greeks thought that maggots spontaneously emerged from rotten meat.  Does that mean that they were right?

Should I go on? 

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2014, 09:08:00 AM »
The majority of Romans were fine with slavery.  Did that make slavery right in their time?

The majority of Germans pre-WWII thought Nazism was right and that the Jews were destroying the country.  Does that mean that they were right?

A few hundred years ago, the majority of people believed that blood letting could balance the humors and cure all kinds of sicknesses.  Does that mean they were right? 

The ancient Greeks thought that maggots spontaneously emerged from rotten meat.  Does that mean that they were right?

Should I go on?
We get your point, but that does nothing to prove a flat earth with zero evidence.  A good start would be a map with verified distances.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2014, 09:17:05 AM »
Would you please, inquisitive, stop trying to change every topic into one about distances and satellites?  We have plenty of those.  Thanks. 

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2014, 09:49:49 AM »
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

There was a lunar eclipse on Oct. 8, 2014 that I and millions of other people saw.  The moon turned reddish as you point out.  This eclipse was predicted well in advance, and there was no mention of using "atmoplanic conditions" to predict it.  A Google search for "atmoplanic conditions" turns up exactly one result, and it's from this forum, and even there it is not explained.  So please explain what this term means and how it can account for lunar eclipses.
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2014, 09:53:20 AM »
I was all ready to see a lunar eclipse back in April.  All I saw were the clouds turning red.  I see red clouds occasionally in the morning or evening, so what does that prove? 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2014, 09:58:00 AM »
I was all ready to see a lunar eclipse back in April.  All I saw were the clouds turning red.  I see red clouds occasionally in the morning or evening, so what does that prove?

It proves that  "Rayleigh Scattering"  is occurring.

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #42 on: December 15, 2014, 10:16:58 AM »
I was all ready to see a lunar eclipse back in April.  All I saw were the clouds turning red.  I see red clouds occasionally in the morning or evening, so what does that prove?

You are avoiding the issue again.  You already admitted that during a lunar eclipse the moon appears to turn a reddish color.  So the fact that you did not see this happen during the time of a particular eclipse is irrelevant.  Millions of people saw this happen on October 8th. 

So please explain your atmoplane theory.


Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2014, 10:19:23 AM »
I also said that I see the clouds turn red occasionally during the morning and evening.  What are you having a problem understanding? 


Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #44 on: December 15, 2014, 11:47:13 AM »
I also said that I see the clouds turn red occasionally during the morning and evening.  What are you having a problem understanding?

Let's try it this way:  all of the world's astronomers (and I challenge you to provide a counter-example) agree that the reddish color we see during a lunar eclipse is due to the Earth passing temporarily between the Sun and Moon.  This is inconsistent with flat earth theory.  You claim that lunar eclipses can be explained by something you call "atmoplane conditions".  I am asking you to elaborate on the term "atmoplane conditions" and to explain how it is responsible for lunar eclipses.
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #45 on: December 15, 2014, 09:51:35 PM »
I also said that I see the clouds turn red occasionally during the morning and evening.  What are you having a problem understanding?
This is germaine in a way. During a total eclipse the direct illumination of the Moon by the Sun is blocked by the Earth. The same phenomenon that makes the Sun appear red near the horizon continues to illuminate the atmosphere above you after it sets for you, so shortly after sunset or before sunrise, even though the Sun is blocked by your horizon at the surface, clouds at higher altitude are still lighted by the reddened sun and appear reddish.

During an eclipse the Moon is illuminated by every sunrise and sunset on Earth at the same time. The only sunlight that gets there has passed through the thickest part of earth's atmosphere and has been filtered to pass the redder end of the spectrum, and refracted and scattered so it can still get to the Moon even though the direct path has been blocked. 

So the same phenomenon that makes clouds appear red to you around sunset also make the Moon appear red during an eclipse. Cool, eh?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #46 on: December 17, 2014, 05:20:36 PM »
Still waiting for jroa to explain what "atmoplane conditions" means and how this explains lunar eclipses.
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #47 on: December 18, 2014, 03:09:29 PM »
I was all ready to see a lunar eclipse back in April.  All I saw were the clouds turning red.  I see red clouds occasionally in the morning or evening, so what does that prove?

If you mean you saw clouds turning red with the moon shining behind them, then you're lying.
The brightness of an eclipsed moon is insufficient to shine through even a fairly thin layer of cloud. If you could see clouds being illuminated by it, they'd have been thin enough to observe the face of the moon itself.
If you mean you saw red clouds in any other part of the sky, then your post is a non sequitur as they were unconnected with the eclipse.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2014, 07:39:09 PM »
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

JROA, it's now been 6 days since you posted the timid response above.  I say "timid", because you have so little belief in your own hypothesis that you posed it as a question.  And despite repeated requests for you to elaborate on how "atmoplanic conditions" could explain lunar eclipses, you have gone silent.  Are you ready to admit that there is no way to explain lunar eclipses with flat earth theory?
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #49 on: December 22, 2014, 07:37:37 AM »
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

JROA, it's now been 6 days since you posted the timid response above.  I say "timid", because you have so little belief in your own hypothesis that you posed it as a question.  And despite repeated requests for you to elaborate on how "atmoplanic conditions" could explain lunar eclipses, you have gone silent.  Are you ready to admit that there is no way to explain lunar eclipses with flat earth theory?

If the atmoplane is the air and other matter above the Earth, then what exactly are you having trouble understanding about "atmoplanic conditions"?  Are you really that confused, or are you just bored? 

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #50 on: December 22, 2014, 11:47:35 AM »
The question that has been asked is simply ?

What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?

Please give jroa some more time to come up with some more flat earth fantasy and fiction.

You have to realize that "atmoplane" and "atmoplanic" are just some more words in the flat earther fiction dictionary. Naturally a flat earther can't use "atmosphere" or "atmospheric" because in their own little fantasy world you can't use the word "sphere."

But it is interesting to see what they are going to come up with next.
We await them.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2014, 12:44:52 PM »
What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?

Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc. etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?  You people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make posts like this in the debate section.  If you have been beat, then just concede.  I know not all of you have the ability to make a proper debate, but you don't need to waste the rest of our time by asking questions that you already know the answers to. 

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2014, 01:16:16 PM »
I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say?
What is a lunar eclipse in FET?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

macrohard

  • 139
  • IQ over 180
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2014, 02:16:00 PM »
I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say?
What is a lunar eclipse in FET?

He answered this already:

Lunar eclipses as we know them do not exist.  The darkening and reddening we observe is explained by pollen and smog conditions which are unique and predictable hundreds of years in advance.

Case closed!

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2014, 02:49:25 PM »
What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?

Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc. etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?  You people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make posts like this in the debate section.  If you have been beat, then just concede.  I know not all of you have the ability to make a proper debate, but you don't need to waste the rest of our time by asking questions that you already know the answers to.

So this is predictable hundreds of years in advance jroa?

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2014, 05:51:42 PM »
What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?

Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc. etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?  You people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make posts like this in the debate section.  If you have been beat, then just concede.  I know not all of you have the ability to make a proper debate, but you don't need to waste the rest of our time by asking questions that you already know the answers to.
So lunar eclipses are the result of atmospheric conditions that happen everywhere in the world at the same time and they are also dependent on the positions of the sun and the moon and can be predicted using newtonian laws of gravity?  The atmosphere is one of the hardest to predict things that we know of second only to quanton randomness and it can even be altered hugely by something as small as a butterfly flapping it's wings, if you are right then lunar eclipses would be almost impossible to predict and yet that's not the case.

I don't think that the round earthers are the ones that are desperate because your nonsense is so easy to disprove.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2014, 06:26:45 PM »
Why would I be using Newtonian Laws of Physics?  They were proven wrong a long time ago. 

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2014, 06:59:50 PM »
And all this time I thought it was just the migrations of the moon  shrimp. ???
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2014, 07:05:51 PM »
JROA, how is it then that round earth predictions can be made with all eclipses so far in advance?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: About that shadow object
« Reply #59 on: December 22, 2014, 07:11:34 PM »
JROA, how is it then that round earth predictions can be made with all eclipses so far in advance?

Predicting the future from the past?