The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses

  • 156 Replies
  • 28288 Views
The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:23:17 AM »
Recently a prominent flat earther on this forum, JROA, admitted that he could not explain how lunar eclipses work if the Earth is flat.  Can any other flat earther do so?

The round earth model says that a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth passes between the Sun and Moon, and the Moon is in the Earth's shadow.  It's simple!  And lunar eclipses can be predicted years in advance using math based on a round Earth, the Moon's orbit around the Earth and the Earth's orbit around the Sun.  The next lunar eclipse will occur on April 4, 2015, and the Moon will turn a blood red color during the eclipse.  So here are the questions:

1) How do lunar eclipses work if the Earth is flat? Be sure to explain how they can be predicted years in advance.
2) Do you doubt that a lunar eclipse will occur on April 5, 2014?
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2015, 10:36:09 PM »
If you would take a few moments to notice a moon when in the sky during parts of it's phases you would notice that the curve of the dark part many times does not match or line up in the right direction if the Earth were causing the shadow. The moon gives off her own light as evidenced by the fact she has phases yet is not in full brilliance when the moon and sun are both in the daytime sky. Look at the supposed Apollo moon rocks, they do not reflect light with any brilliance. The path in our sky is known of the moon and the sun, they each have their appointed path, deducing the eclipses is simply a matter of math.

The moon and sun are nearly the same size and when their paths intersect we have solar eclipses, there could very well be another heavenly body causing lunar eclipses, or the moons own light could be causing this, our Earth is covered by a shield like molten glass, the sun and moon are quite likely just on the other side of this shield. Pretty much the sky is the limit on what causes a lunar eclipse.

There are page after page of science fact that the Earth is motionless, water is one of the main proofs of a flat Earth, an eye level horizon no matter how high you go is another, no tilt evidenced in distant objects.

Equal summers in the North and South hemispheres, the Arctic ice melts yet the Antarctic remains icebound.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2015, 06:58:23 AM »
Recently a prominent flat earther on this forum, JROA, admitted that he could not explain how lunar eclipses work if the Earth is flat.  Can any other flat earther do so?

The round earth model says that a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth passes between the Sun and Moon, and the Moon is in the Earth's shadow.  It's simple!  And lunar eclipses can be predicted years in advance using math based on a round Earth, the Moon's orbit around the Earth and the Earth's orbit around the Sun.  The next lunar eclipse will occur on April 4, 2015, and the Moon will turn a blood red color during the eclipse.  So here are the questions:

1) How do lunar eclipses work if the Earth is flat? Be sure to explain how they can be predicted years in advance.
2) Do you doubt that a lunar eclipse will occur on April 5, 2014?

The flat earth wiki is a good place to start to have a general idea of how a flat earth model works. According to this wiki, the eclipse is caused by a "shadow object". Unfortunately no actual properties or data of this shadow object is provided.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2107
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2015, 10:51:51 PM »
Recently a prominent flat earther on this forum, JROA, admitted that he could not explain how lunar eclipses work if the Earth is flat.  Can any other flat earther do so?

The round earth model says that a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth passes between the Sun and Moon, and the Moon is in the Earth's shadow.  It's simple!  And lunar eclipses can be predicted years in advance using math based on a round Earth, the Moon's orbit around the Earth and the Earth's orbit around the Sun.  The next lunar eclipse will occur on April 4, 2015, and the Moon will turn a blood red color during the eclipse.  So here are the questions:

1) How do lunar eclipses work if the Earth is flat? Be sure to explain how they can be predicted years in advance.
2) Do you doubt that a lunar eclipse will occur on April 5, 2014?

The flat earth wiki is a good place to start to have a general idea of how a flat earth model works. According to this wiki, the eclipse is caused by a "shadow object". Unfortunately no actual properties or data of this shadow object is provided.

So you're saying jroa didn't know that was there?

Also why can't anyone see the shadow object with infrared or notice the moving spot in the cosmos Thad perfectly circular and blocking out the stars behind it.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2015, 05:53:37 PM »
...our Earth is covered by a shield like molten glass, the sun and moon are quite likely just on the other side of this shield...

There are page after page of science fact that the Earth is motionless...

Molten glass? Do you even know what that means?  Molten means melted or liquid.  So you think there is a liquid glass shield around the Earth?  What evidence do you have for this, and what keeps the liquid from falling to Earth like rain?

And please provide citations for the "page after page of science fact that the Earth is motionless".
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2015, 06:02:41 PM »
...our Earth is covered by a shield like molten glass, the sun and moon are quite likely just on the other side of this shield...

There are page after page of science fact that the Earth is motionless...

Molten glass? Do you even know what that means?  Molten means melted or liquid.  So you think there is a liquid glass shield around the Earth?  What evidence do you have for this, and what keeps the liquid from falling to Earth like rain?

And please provide citations for the "page after page of science fact that the Earth is motionless".

The molten glass comment could be a reference to my theory on aetheric shielding. If that's the case, then Wayne is on point. He is also correct in his claim that the moon produces its own light.
Read the FAQS.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2015, 06:04:02 PM »
...our Earth is covered by a shield like molten glass, the sun and moon are quite likely just on the other side of this shield...

There are page after page of science fact that the Earth is motionless...

Molten glass? Do you even know what that means?  Molten means melted or liquid.  So you think there is a liquid glass shield around the Earth?  What evidence do you have for this, and what keeps the liquid from falling to Earth like rain?

And please provide citations for the "page after page of science fact that the Earth is motionless".

The molten glass comment could be a reference to my theory on aetheric shielding. If that's the case, then Wayne is on point. He is also correct in his claim that the moon produces its own light.

What is the source of the Moon's light?
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2015, 06:56:02 PM »
What is the source of the Moon's light?

It is my personal working theory that the Sun and Moon work together to produce the Moon's light. From my studies, I have learned that the Moon is almost entirely made of calcite. Calcite is a fluorescent mineral. What that means is that it absorbs light, then (for an easier understanding) shoots that light back out as its own light source. At certain times during the day the Sun reflects its light off the various reflective surfaces of Earth. This light then bounces off the Earth and hits the Moon. Being entirely made of calcite, the Moon then absorbs this light and releases it as its own light source due to the fluorescent nature of calcite.
Read the FAQS.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 07:40:08 PM »
What is the source of the Moon's light?

It is my personal working theory that the Sun and Moon work together to produce the Moon's light. From my studies, I have learned that the Moon is almost entirely made of calcite. Calcite is a fluorescent mineral. What that means is that it absorbs light, then (for an easier understanding) shoots that light back out as its own light source. At certain times during the day the Sun reflects its light off the various reflective surfaces of Earth. This light then bounces off the Earth and hits the Moon. Being entirely made of calcite, the Moon then absorbs this light and releases it as its own light source due to the fluorescent nature of calcite.

How did you arrive at this theory?  If it's based on other people's work, please cite the sources.  If based on your own work, how did you determine that the Moon is made of calcite?
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 08:48:39 PM »
It seems that calcite is replacing the moon shrimp and molten glass is replacing the ice dome. ::) ???
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 !

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2015, 03:44:32 AM »
If you would take a few moments to notice a moon when in the sky during parts of it's phases you would notice that the curve of the dark part many times does not match or line up in the right direction if the Earth were causing the shadow.

The Moon's phases are not caused by the Earth's shadow.

Quote
The moon gives off her own light as evidenced by the fact she has phases yet is not in full brilliance when the moon and sun are both in the daytime sky.

No, this is an example of contrast. The Moon does not change brightness, the Sun is just brighter and illuminates the atmosphere which makes the Moon seem less bright.

If the moon gave off it's own light, there would be no phases.

Quote
Look at the supposed Apollo moon rocks, they do not reflect light with any brilliance.

They do not need to. What do you expect the albedo of the moon to be? It it were higher, it would be even brighter.

Quote
The path in our sky is known of the moon and the sun, they each have their appointed path, deducing the eclipses is simply a matter of math.

The moon and sun are nearly the same size and when their paths intersect we have solar eclipses, there could very well be another heavenly body causing lunar eclipses, or the moons own light could be causing this, our Earth is covered by a shield like molten glass, the sun and moon are quite likely just on the other side of this shield. Pretty much the sky is the limit on what causes a lunar eclipse.

There are page after page of science fact that the Earth is motionless, water is one of the main proofs of a flat Earth, an eye level horizon no matter how high you go is another, no tilt evidenced in distant objects.

Incorrect, the visual horizon is lower than "eye-level".

Quote
Equal summers in the North and South hemispheres, the Arctic ice melts yet the Antarctic remains icebound.

This is due to climate.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2015, 02:33:36 AM »
It is my personal working theory that the Sun and Moon work together to produce the Moon's light. From my studies, I have learned that the Moon is almost entirely made of calcite.

Unfortunately—as science has already proven otherwise—the results of your "studies" are erroneous.  I'm also unable to understand exactly how you've come to the apparent conclusion that the moon is made entirely of calcite.  Can you briefly describe the method(s) you used to determine this?

You also misuse the term "theory".  You do not have a "working theory".  You have, being generous of spirit, a hypothesis.  And until your calcite hypothesis is subject to peer review, and becomes a theory, you're wasting your time posting your notion here.  And until your hypothesis is ever peer reviewed, it has no more veracity than saying the moon's made out of green cheese.  Sorry.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2016, 09:44:59 AM »
What is the source of the Moon's light?
It is my personal working theory that the Sun and Moon work together to produce the Moon's light. From my studies, I have learned that the Moon is almost entirely made of calcite. Calcite is a fluorescent mineral. What that means is that it absorbs light, then (for an easier understanding) shoots that light back out as its own light source. At certain times during the day the Sun reflects its light off the various reflective surfaces of Earth. This light then bounces off the Earth and hits the Moon. Being entirely made of calcite, the Moon then absorbs this light and releases it as its own light source due to the fluorescent nature of calcite.

This is entirely overthought.
When light strikes any object, some wavelengths are absorbed and others are reflected. This can be proven by shining a very strong light on an object and measuring the amount of thermal energy absorbed vs its apparent color. Now, look at a plain "non-reflective" rock or piece of wood. Can you see it? Yes? Then it reflects light. That's all. The moon does not need to absorb and release like a light-powered capacitor, it does not need to be as clearly reflective as a mirror. We simply see the moon just like everything else. The Sun's light strikes the moon, moon rocks are very white, meaning they reflect most visible light that hits them, which is what allows the moon to be seen from Earth and ever so slightly illuminate Earth's surface.

I don't know if you're FE or RE or not, so:
If FE: "u cant prove the earth is round occams razor says youre wrong" The heliocentric model is backed by physics which is in turn backed by abounding experimental evidence. Unlike universal acceleration and shadow objects and magical bendy light.
If RE: Please study the heliocentric model more so you have a better understanding of the world around you.

If you would take a few moments to notice a moon when in the sky during parts of it's phases you would notice that the curve of the dark part many times does not match or line up in the right direction if the Earth were causing the shadow. The moon gives off her own light as evidenced by the fact she has phases yet is not in full brilliance when the moon and sun are both in the daytime sky. Look at the supposed Apollo moon rocks, they do not reflect light with any brilliance.

If the moon gave off its own light then it would have no dark part, as dephelis said. That dark part is the moon's own shadow from the sun. Also, the impression of decreased brightness during the day does nothing to support the moon giving off its own light. It'll appear to be giving off less light when the sun is visible whether it's giving off its own or if it's reflecting, because the same amount of sunlight is hitting the moon, it's just that we also have direct sunlight going into our eyes. This produces a difference in contrast as dephelis said, and also our eyes naturally adjust to the different level of sunlight, so the unchanged actual level of light is perceived in daytime as being less bright than it is at night, when our pupils are dilated to allow more light in due to the lack of sunlight.

That's based on the heliocentric model, of course, but the moon's own dark region disproves the moon producing its own light in both Round Earth Theory and Flat.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 09:47:13 AM by NewtSmooth »
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2016, 10:09:04 AM »
What is the source of the Moon's light?
It is my personal working theory that the Sun and Moon work together to produce the Moon's light. From my studies, I have learned that the Moon is almost entirely made of calcite. Calcite is a fluorescent mineral. What that means is that it absorbs light, then (for an easier understanding) shoots that light back out as its own light source. At certain times during the day the Sun reflects its light off the various reflective surfaces of Earth. This light then bounces off the Earth and hits the Moon. Being entirely made of calcite, the Moon then absorbs this light and releases it as its own light source due to the fluorescent nature of calcite.

This is entirely overthought.
When light strikes any object, some wavelengths are absorbed and others are reflected. This can be proven by shining a very strong light on an object and measuring the amount of thermal energy absorbed vs its apparent color. Now, look at a plain "non-reflective" rock or piece of wood. Can you see it? Yes? Then it reflects light. That's all. The moon does not need to absorb and release like a light-powered capacitor, it does not need to be as clearly reflective as a mirror. We simply see the moon just like everything else. The Sun's light strikes the moon, moon rocks are very white, meaning they reflect most visible light that hits them, which is what allows the moon to be seen from Earth and ever so slightly illuminate Earth's surface.

I don't know if you're FE or RE or not, so:
If FE: "u cant prove the earth is round occams razor says youre wrong" The heliocentric model is backed by physics which is in turn backed by abounding experimental evidence. Unlike universal acceleration and shadow objects and magical bendy light.
If RE: Please study the heliocentric model more so you have a better understanding of the world around you.

If you would take a few moments to notice a moon when in the sky during parts of it's phases you would notice that the curve of the dark part many times does not match or line up in the right direction if the Earth were causing the shadow. The moon gives off her own light as evidenced by the fact she has phases yet is not in full brilliance when the moon and sun are both in the daytime sky. Look at the supposed Apollo moon rocks, they do not reflect light with any brilliance.

If the moon gave off its own light then it would have no dark part, as dephelis said. That dark part is the moon's own shadow from the sun. Also, the impression of decreased brightness during the day does nothing to support the moon giving off its own light. It'll appear to be giving off less light when the sun is visible whether it's giving off its own or if it's reflecting, because the same amount of sunlight is hitting the moon, it's just that we also have direct sunlight going into our eyes. This produces a difference in contrast as dephelis said, and also our eyes naturally adjust to the different level of sunlight, so the unchanged actual level of light is perceived in daytime as being less bright than it is at night, when our pupils are dilated to allow more light in due to the lack of sunlight.

That's based on the heliocentric model, of course, but the moon's own dark region disproves the moon producing its own light in both Round Earth Theory and Flat.

The thread is 1 year and 4 months old, it is doubtful the original posters have been waiting for a new reply on it.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2016, 11:09:15 AM »
The thread is 1 year and 4 months old, it is doubtful the original posters have been waiting for a new reply on it.
I know. The thread was frustrating to read though, and even if nobody pays any more attention to it I know I have the closure of having said something about it. Plus the original posters might not care but somebody else might read it, so it doesn't hurt to add more content to the discussion.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2016, 01:12:10 PM »
The thread is 1 year and 4 months old, it is doubtful the original posters have been waiting for a new reply on it.
I know. The thread was frustrating to read though, and even if nobody pays any more attention to it I know I have the closure of having said something about it. Plus the original posters might not care but somebody else might read it, so it doesn't hurt to add more content to the discussion.

I agree many of the posts on these forums are very frustrating. You can make yourself crazy trying understand how people can believe some of these ideas.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40996
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2016, 02:26:52 PM »
The thread is 1 year and 4 months old, it is doubtful the original posters have been waiting for a new reply on it.
I know. The thread was frustrating to read though, and even if nobody pays any more attention to it I know I have the closure of having said something about it. Plus the original posters might not care but somebody else might read it, so it doesn't hurt to add more content to the discussion.

I agree many of the posts on these forums are very frustrating. You can make yourself crazy trying understand how people can believe some of these ideas.

Once you accept the flatness things will be much less frustrating.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

rabinoz

  • 24743
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2016, 03:39:40 PM »
Once you accept the flatness things will be much less frustrating.
Since "you accept the flatness things", may you can explain how lunar eclipses occur.  I submitted this material within another post on February 28, 2016, but had little response to the eclipse part of it, so maybe you can help.

For a start we know that all lunar eclipses occur at the full moon, so the moon must be on the far side of the earth from the sun at the time. Now "the Wiki" gives the following explanation:
Quote from: The Wiki
The Lunar Eclipse
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).    . . . . . . .  A lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time.   . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.
The diagram below is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon with a lunar eclipse. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are grossly exaggerated (though the sun, "shadow object" and the moon are to scale with each other. The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator.

With the "shadow object" so small, there is no way for it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Just try tracing out the rays of light from the sun. Almost all simply bypass the "shadow object". The most we would get might be a slight reduction in illumination!

A couple of obvious questions arise:
  • How does the observer directly under the moon see the moon as full?
  • How does such a tiny object ("five to ten miles in diameter") cast any significant shadow when it is "somewhat close to the sun."
Would someone please explain how this works,
because I simply cannot understand how it can happen, whether "you accept the flatness things" or not!

If my interpretation of the geometry or light paths is incorrect, I would love to be informed!

« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 02:47:49 PM by rabinoz »

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40996
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2016, 03:50:45 PM »
Sorry rabinoz, I don't know the answer. I don't like the shadow object theory! You could join the flat side and make the theory better.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2016, 04:56:31 PM »
Once you accept the flatness things will be much less frustrating.
What's so frustrating is that people speak of "round-earthers" as poor benighted souls and ignorant for not believing in a theory that is so riddled with holes.
Sorry rabinoz, I don't know the answer. I don't like the shadow object theory! You could join the flat side and make the theory better.
For example, Flat Earth Theory's ad hoc propositions can't even manage to convince a believer.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40996
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2016, 05:05:53 PM »
That's because there's more than one theory about various things. I don't like the shadow object theory because we can't see the shadow object.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2016, 05:25:37 PM »
    That's because there's more than one theory about various things. I don't like the shadow object theory because we can't see the shadow object.

    Yes, there's that, but also, ya know,
    • How does the observer directly under the moon see the moon as full?
    • How does such a tiny object ("five to ten miles in diameter") cast any signifigant shadow when it is "somewhat close to the sun."

    A "shadow object" that small is physically incapable of casting a shadow from a 32-mile light source onto a 32-mile surface. It would have to be a 32-mile object, otherwise it simply wouldn't happen.
    Also, as for the first thing, I had an unrefined thought as to how the sun and moon's wobbling can create significant changes in the moon phases. I won't post it yet, just a bit of confusion as to the exact height of that skew in their orbits, so I'm not sure if it's an actual problem needing an FE answer or just a temporary gap in my understanding of FET.
    Quote from: jroa
    Wow, great non-response
    Quote from: disputeone
    I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
    Quote from: markjo
    Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

    *

    rabinoz

    • 24743
    • Real Earth Believer
    Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
    « Reply #22 on: May 05, 2016, 03:25:25 AM »
      That's because there's more than one theory about various things. I don't like the shadow object theory because we can't see the shadow object.

      Yes, there's that, but also, ya know,
      • How does the observer directly under the moon see the moon as full?
      • How does such a tiny object ("five to ten miles in diameter") cast any signifigant shadow when it is "somewhat close to the sun."

      A "shadow object" that small is physically incapable of casting a shadow from a 32-mile light source onto a 32-mile surface. It would have to be a 32-mile object, otherwise it simply wouldn't happen.
      Also, as for the first thing, I had an unrefined thought as to how the sun and moon's wobbling can create significant changes in the moon phases. I won't post it yet, just a bit of confusion as to the exact height of that skew in their orbits, so I'm not sure if it's an actual problem needing an FE answer or just a temporary gap in my understanding of FET.
      Exactly, that's what I tried to get over, but no knowledgeable FEer would explain it. Maybe they don't have a clue either. [/list]

      Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
      « Reply #23 on: May 05, 2016, 03:44:32 AM »
      The moon has its own light source as it has a measurable cooling effect as opposed to sunlights warmth. Most of these topics are irrelevant anyway, no curve at 8 inches × distance squared means no ball. No curve, no ball.

      Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
      « Reply #24 on: May 05, 2016, 05:01:01 AM »
      The moon has its own light source as it has a measurable cooling effect as opposed to sunlights warmth. Most of these topics are irrelevant anyway, no curve at 8 inches × distance squared means no ball. No curve, no ball.

      I have to ask, you are claiming moon light cools things down? How does that work?

      These topics are not irrelevant as 99% of the planet believes there is a curvature. The arguement could be made that the extremely fringe belief that denies most of modern science is irrelevant since science and the rest of the world continues with most of them not even knowing the belief exists.

      Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
      « Reply #25 on: May 05, 2016, 07:23:27 AM »
        ... How does the observer directly under the moon see the moon as full?

        ... Also, as for the first thing, I had an unrefined thought as to how the sun and moon's wobbling can create significant changes in the moon phases. I won't post it yet, just a bit of confusion as to the exact height of that skew in their orbits, so I'm not sure if it's an actual problem needing an FE answer or just a temporary gap in my understanding of FET.
        Exactly, that's what I tried to get over, but no knowledgeable FEer would explain it. Maybe they don't have a clue either. [/list]
        I made a thread for this second part here http://tinyurl.com/h9qvzox, and with 26 views and 0 replies in over 12 hours I'd have to agree that no knowledgeable FEer has a clue.
        Quote from: jroa
        Wow, great non-response
        Quote from: disputeone
        I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
        Quote from: markjo
        Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

        *

        Space Cowgirl

        • MOM
        • Administrator
        • 40996
        • Official FE Recruiter
        Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
        « Reply #26 on: May 05, 2016, 10:01:19 AM »
          ... How does the observer directly under the moon see the moon as full?

          ... Also, as for the first thing, I had an unrefined thought as to how the sun and moon's wobbling can create significant changes in the moon phases. I won't post it yet, just a bit of confusion as to the exact height of that skew in their orbits, so I'm not sure if it's an actual problem needing an FE answer or just a temporary gap in my understanding of FET.
          Exactly, that's what I tried to get over, but no knowledgeable FEer would explain it. Maybe they don't have a clue either. [/list]
          I made a thread for this second part here http://tinyurl.com/h9qvzox, and with 26 views and 0 replies in over 12 hours I'd have to agree that no knowledgeable FEer has a clue.

          Oh wow, 12 whole hours!! How dare those pesky flat earthers have other things to do. 
          I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

          ?

          Jadyyn

          • 1533
          Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
          « Reply #27 on: May 05, 2016, 10:58:54 AM »
          Sorry rabinoz, I don't know the answer. I don't like the shadow object theory! You could join the flat side and make the theory better.
          Sorry, but people living on one side of a FE does not support what we observe in the sky/heavens as I demonstrate here: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

          For any viable FE model, it ABSOLUTELY MUST have people living on both sides (i.e. have a S.Pole (single point) with the corresponding S. Celestial Pole (single point in the sky above it - center of southern star trails))... This of course, causes problems with "gravity" - no UA, and how the Sun works, etc. I'm afraid I don't know how to make ANY FE model work (to get the sky/heavens and telescopes with equatorial mounts (people who have these can't wrap their heads around how they would possibly work on a FE) working).

          You might ask JRowe with his Dual Earth model. Of course he has to invoke the mythical Aether to do everything from displaying the sky to "gravity" to "warping" people from one side to the other. But hey, at least he has people on both sides AND a single point S.Pole! Also, the FES would have to abandon virtually everything they have been pushing and admit they were WRONG - tough pill to swallow. So I seriously doubt the current model will be abandoned even with all its flaws.

          Good luck though.
          “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
          "The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
          "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

          *

          Space Cowgirl

          • MOM
          • Administrator
          • 40996
          • Official FE Recruiter
          Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
          « Reply #28 on: May 05, 2016, 02:48:25 PM »
          The FES hasn't been pushing anything. Most of you angry globularists tend to think there's some flat earth cabal out there corrupting the innocent, but you come here of your own will.
          I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

          Re: The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses
          « Reply #29 on: May 05, 2016, 06:02:59 PM »
          The FES hasn't been pushing anything. Most of you angry globularists tend to think there's some flat earth cabal out there corrupting the innocent, but you come here of your own will.
          Are you kidding?
          The FES pushes the idea that to believe the earth is a globe is to be weak minded and a slave to the "Conspirators". The FES has always had to, by definition, push the flatness of the earth because the idea has not been readily accepted because there's not enough proof to either officiate the FE model or to overturn the RE model. I once saw somebody running through a Tom Bishop post on a piece of visual evidence and there were over a dozen times when he said simply "The photo looks flat because you are looking at a flat plane," or in other words "Well it's flat because it is," and that's something I've seen in many other threads. How in the world is that not literally pushing FE?

          There's pushing and there's proving. If you prove it and make the claim that's science. If you skip the proof and go straight to the claim that's pushing the claim. If your claim is disproven but you continue to preach it as fact that's pushing the claim. I've been lurking here for a while now and got tired of seeing FEers continually skip the proof and replace it with character attacks, say RE is impossible because of something they don't understand like why a rotating globe wouldn't throw everybody into space, completely ignore the fundamental principles of geometry that they require to prove the earth is flat, et cetera.

          That's why I came here. Of my own free will, yes. I came here because I saw so many people here believing the earth is flat because of fundamentally flawed proofs and believing it was not round because they did not understand the proofs accepted by literally everybody else, and that made me angry and sad. That in turn led me to create an account to help my fellow "angry globularists" point out the obvious that others can't seem to notice.
          Quote from: jroa
          Wow, great non-response
          Quote from: disputeone
          I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
          Quote from: markjo
          Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.