The flat Earth model cannot explain lunar eclipses

Tell us more how your common sense tells you everything that is true.  Is it like a ouija board?  Do you talk to spirits with your common sense?

Might this be an appropriate time to remind you that the evidence for moonshramp is that "they communicated with James in a dream" - and that is taken as proof by FE'ers?
And you make jokes about talking to spirits.   

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.

Wow, and you're a recruiter?

I believe there are many areas where the round earth model shine, you're just further proving rainboz point. FET can't explain everything, and it can't even do it well.

Personally I think the lunar life forms cause everything we see on the moon. The lunas (aka moonshramps) flourish when the sun is closest, not from direct sunlight, but from the ambient heat. The moon isn't being eclipsed by a shadow object, but the lunas are completely dormant.

I think you forgot the part about where you also believe in space unicorns Space Cowgirl.

I would ask if you could even provide a modicum of evidence to prove this, but you've dived so far into fantasy land and so far off topic with this post, I'm afraid your answer would dive into a realm far beyond the imagination of even the most talented science fiction writers.
That isn't a complement. You've probably already read this and taken it as such, so I couldn't convince you otherwise, nor can anyone in this thread, it seems, convince you of your insanity.

Quote from: InfamousCat on May 14, 2016, 06:10:06 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 14, 2016, 05:20:48 PM

Quote from: InfamousCat on May 14, 2016, 05:16:34 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 08, 2016, 09:36:34 AM

Personally I think the lunar life forms cause everything we see on the moon. The lunas (aka moonshramps) flourish when the sun is closest, not from direct sunlight, but from the ambient heat. The moon isn't being eclipsed by a shadow object, but the lunas are completely dormant.

Lunar life forms?... You can't be serious?

Of course I am serious.

Life can't exist on the moon. There is no water, oxygen or atmosphere to support it. There are no such things as lunas or moonshramps, that's gotta be the most ridiculous explanation I have ever heard. You people will come up with any old bullcrap to support your theories

I think you meant to say that you do not know if there is life, water, oxygen, or atmosphere on the moon, and that you have no idea what could be up there or if those are absolute universal requirements for life.  Is that what you meant?

Actually, if the earth was as you say it is, lunas make even less sense.

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 06:13:01 PM

Quote from: InfamousCat on May 14, 2016, 06:10:06 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 14, 2016, 05:20:48 PM

Quote from: InfamousCat on May 14, 2016, 05:16:34 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 08, 2016, 09:36:34 AM

Personally I think the lunar life forms cause everything we see on the moon. The lunas (aka moonshramps) flourish when the sun is closest, not from direct sunlight, but from the ambient heat. The moon isn't being eclipsed by a shadow object, but the lunas are completely dormant.

Lunar life forms?... You can't be serious?

Of course I am serious.

Life can't exist on the moon. There is no water, oxygen or atmosphere to support it. There are no such things as lunas or moonshramps, that's gotta be the most ridiculous explanation I have ever heard. You people will come up with any old bullcrap to support your theories

I think you meant to say that you do not know if there is life, water, oxygen, or atmosphere on the moon, and that you have no idea what could be up there or if those are absolute universal requirements for life.  Is that what you meant?

Actually, if the earth was as you say it is, lunas make even less sense.

You make even less sense, sorry bro.   

FLAT MOON = EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE THEN. THAT'S THE DIRECTION BRO, I KNOW, START FROM THERE.

BE IT FULL OR NOT, YOU ALWAYS SEE THE SAME FACE. WHY? NO PLANET, NO ROTATION ON NO AXIS. THE MOON IS FLAT. YOU CAN NEVER GET TO SEE THE OTHER SIDE. LIKE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLAT EARTH.

THE SUN AND THE MOON ARE VERY MUCH THE SAME SIZE, ONE IS A FLAT LUMINESCENT PLANE ROCK, YOU GUESS WHAT COULD CAUSE IT? NASA ROCKS ARE SCUM.

WHAT IS THE SUN REALLY? HOW DOES IT WORK? IT'S A BALL OF FIRE, ANYWAY.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 08, 2016, 09:36:34 AM

Personally I think the lunar life forms cause everything we see on the moon. The lunas (aka moonshramps) flourish when the sun is closest, not from direct sunlight, but from the ambient heat. The moon isn't being eclipsed by a shadow object, but the lunas are completely dormant.

I think you forgot the part about where you also believe in space unicorns Space Cowgirl.

I would ask if you could even provide a modicum of evidence to prove this, but you've dived so far into fantasy land and so far off topic with this post, I'm afraid your answer would dive into a realm far beyond the imagination of even the most talented science fiction writers.
That isn't a complement. You've probably already read this and taken it as such, so I couldn't convince you otherwise, nor can anyone in this thread, it seems, convince you of your insanity.

You mad, bro?

Maybe there are space unicorns, but I've never seen them.  I've never seen the lunas either, but James communicated with them and he wouldn't lie about such a thing.

FLAT MOON = EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE THEN. THAT'S THE DIRECTION BRO, I KNOW, START FROM THERE.

BE IT FULL OR NOT, YOU ALWAYS SEE THE SAME FACE. WHY? NO PLANET, NO ROTATION ON NO AXIS. THE MOON IS FLAT. YOU CAN NEVER GET TO SEE THE OTHER SIDE. LIKE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLAT EARTH.

THE SUN AND THE MOON ARE VERY MUCH THE SAME SIZE, ONE IS A FLAT LUMINESCENT PLANE ROCK, YOU GUESS WHAT COULD CAUSE IT? NASA ROCKS ARE SCUM.

WHAT IS THE SUN REALLY? HOW DOES IT WORK? IT'S A BALL OF FIRE, ANYWAY.

Actually, you are incorrect. Because of Lunar Libration, we can see ~59% of the Moon. This leads to a problem. If the Moon is flat, how does its surface ("skin") creep around?

Look especially at the crater Tycho below:
(http://earthsky.org/space/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration)

Actually, per RET/heliocentric models, the Moon does rotate once per month and revolves around the Earth in 1 month. That is why we see just one side. If it didn't rotate, we would see the whole thing.

One other problem about the Sun and Moon being the about the same size - solar eclipses. Although it sounds simple, the Moon just goes in front of the Sun (and to most FEers it is JUST that simple), the Sun and Moon are different sizes in the sky. The Moon can be bigger than the Sun creating a "total eclipse". So, the question becomes - if the Moon is bigger than the Sun AND about the same altitude, how come the whole Earth doesn't go dark during a solar eclipse (i.e. the entire "spotlight" doesn't get covered up and go "out" everywhere)?

Like this total eclipse (Nov 13, 2012):

(https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/13/total-solar-eclipse-australia)

The eclipse will cast its 95-mile (150km) wide shadow starting at dawn in Australia's Northern Territory, then cross the north-east tip of the country before swooping east across the South Pacific, where no islands are in its direct path.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_November_13,_2012)

To put it a different way, with the Sun being ~3000 mi up and ~32 mi in diameter (whatever numbers you want to use), what size and altitude would the Moon have to be to cause a 95 mi wide shadow?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

works better if you speak arab, but you can uderstand the same if you're not a monkey.

and I KNOW YOU ARE not, we're intelligent, we're no monkeys, evolution is crap. face it.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

see this too

there's a lot guys, you have no escuses, you CAN learn something in your life, for once!

something true, no solar system bullshit!

god bless you.

To put it a different way, with the Sun being ~3000 mi up and ~32 mi in diameter (whatever numbers you want to use), what size and altitude would the Moon have to be to cause a 95 mi wide shadow?

Credit due here - I think this is a brand new FE disproof.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

works better if you speak arab, but you can uderstand the same if you're not a monkey.

and I KNOW YOU ARE not, we're intelligent, we're no monkeys, evolution is crap. face it.

Sorry, "we see with half the eye". Splitting the iris of the eye in half, like the top half sees far and the lower half see near?? Sorry, but lenses don't work that way. He needs a new pair of glasses.

Also, the Sun is 3,600 mi up but 2,400,000 KM in diameter - what?? - unless they transcribed that wrong.

So the Moon is half the size of the Sun? and half as high 1800 mi? Doesn't work...


Notice that the partial eclipse of the Sun extends 1/2 the Earth on the image above. With the Moon so small (16 mi?) and 1/2 way up to the Sun, the partial eclipse would be like only 2x-3x the "total eclipse" swath (200-300 mi), not 1/2 the Earth. Try again...

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
see this too
there's a lot guys, you have no escuses, you CAN learn something in your life, for once!
something true, no solar system bullshit!
god bless you.

Look we've seen this silly trivial stuff long ago! And YOU think that YOU have something earth shattering - well flat earth shattering it is!

In dragging out these same old arguments you prove that you know nothing of how the globe works!

Really you should learn a tiny bit about a topic before you try mount an argument.

Now you have shown that you are just another case of "I don't understand the Globe so the earth must be flat!"

We see it all the time!

A tiny hint! the earth does not revolve 360 in 24 hours! It manages to get around in 23.9345 hr, which is about 24 x (364.24/365.24))!

See a clue in the numbers 364.24 and 365.24?



I'll look at the rest of the video later.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

see this too

there's a lot guys, you have no excuses, you CAN learn something in your life, for once!

something true, no solar system bullshit!

god bless you.

The first part of the video with the Sun's rays makes the wrong assumptions and perspective. This has already been addressed. See the topic (crepuscular rays) discussed here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66659.0)

Things like the Sun can't reflect off the water if it is millions of miles away is just stupid. The water is like a mirror reflecting everything above it. That would be like saying if I lay a mirror on the ground, it can't reflect the Sun. Total BS.

The phases of the Moon. This guy doesn't know what he is talking about. (1) The FE Sun is a flat HORIZONTAL disk - it is not a vertical disk at the edge of the Earth. (2) The FE Moon is a flat HORIZONTAL disk that isn't lit up by the Sun. The Sun is supposed to act like a "spotlight" or everyone on Earth would see it all the time. Neither the Sun nor the "spotlight" light up the Moon. It MUST be self-illuminating. (3) A flat HORIZONTAL disk Sun is not going to make phases on a flat HORIZONTAL disk Moon.


The FE deception here is they talk about and show the "spotlight" as a nice round circle. The truth is it looks differently throughout the year. Let's see them make a "spotlight" from a HORIZONTAL circle Sun look like December:


The video is just another ad hoc explanation that tries to explain one thing and causing LOTS of problems in other things (if the Sun and the Moon were like that, everyone on Earth would see them all the time). That is what the FE fantasy is made of - conflicting ad hoc explanations. That is why there is no one single FE model (or map that works after THOUSANDS of years).

His BS of the Sun not working on a heliocentric spherical Earth is total BS. Grab a lightbulb (Sun) and a ball (Moon) and revolve it around you (Earth). It will go through all the phases INCLUDING a Solar Eclipse (ball blocking the lamp) and Lunar Eclipse (your shadow on the ball). Furthermore, if the ball is smaller than the lightbulb (Moon is way smaller than the Sun), the ball will make an even smaller "total eclipse" on you (umbra). The penumbra will be bigger than the ball. This is EXACTLY what we observe on Earth:


Him saying the Moon phases can't happen is total BS:


That's as far as I got in the video, because this guy really doesn't know what he is talking about or how the heavens work on either a FE or RE.

NONE of this explains why during a Solar Eclipse with the Moon's apparent size bigger than the Sun's (i.e. total eclipse), the whole FE doesn't go dark.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
see this too
there's a lot guys, you have no escuses, you CAN learn something in your life, for once!
something true, no solar system bullshit!
god bless you.

For a start the comment to the video starts with:

Published on Dec 5, 2014
NASA's astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but heliocentrists have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Nicolas Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Nowadays they have settled around 93 million for the time-being.

I could ask how anyone around 1,500 AD was expected to measure the distance to the sun - run out his trusted Stanley tape!
Back then there has no way to make an accurate estimate and reasonable accuracy had to wait till there was some idea about the size of the orbit of Venus. In fact I am amazed at some of the discoveries these astronomers made before the modern telescopes and photography.

Then you worry about "Issac(sic) Newton once said, 'It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!' " Well, actually it does not matter! As long as the sun is much further from the earth than the earth's diameter, it makes little difference!

You JohnRozz should be tremendously proud of the early Italian scientists and astronomers. Galileo kept such detailed records that after Neptune was identified Galileo's records were found to show this slowly moving object that he had not recognised as a planet.

So, back to the sun's distance, the simple fact is that as methods improved, so did the accuracy of the measurement.

Now what about the distance or YOUR sun! From the video (which I know is over a lake in Scotland!) the obvious inference is that the sun is just above that cloud as in:

But I, in my ignorance thought that you sun never move closer to Scotland than the Tropic of Cancer at 23.4° N at least 3,600 km away!

And I thought that your hero and the author of "TheSacredTexts" wrote:

The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute
miles.

Read all about it in Chapter 5 "THE  TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN  ".

So now we have the sun at 700 miles or 1127 km - make up you mind!

But theres more:

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator

. . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

This is utterly ridiculous! Is YOUR SUN:

• 2 km high over a lake in Scotland or
• 1,127 km as the author of "the Sacred Texts", Samuel Birley Rowbotham, claims or
• approximately 4,800 km from Voliva?

Estimates of the Real Sun's distance were made thousands of years ago, but the first fairly accurate determination was based on the Transit of Venus measurements done in 1769 on Captain Cooks 2nd voyage.

French astronomer Jerome Lalande collected all the data and computed the first accurate distance to the Sun: 153 million kilometers, good to within three percent of the true value!

from: HOW DID WE FIND THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN?
This is over 100 years earlier than Samuel Birley Rowbotham's ridiculous 1,127 km value.


In case you are wondering
Minimum Distance from Sun: 146 million km and
Maximum Distance from Sun: 152 million km.
And, I don't think anyone will want to vary these much.

Now, stop wasting our time with this rubbish. If you want to argue for a flat earth, by all means do it, but ALL you have done so far is attacked your opponents (not the FACTS) and made ridiculous statements about things you are totally ignorant of.

A word of advice, don't take any notice of Eric Dubay! You'll get shot down in flames everytime if you do.

You didn't explain how the sun's rays are not paralell

You didn't explain how the sun's rays are not paralell

There IS an easy explanation for that that I gave on a post in T F E S.org which this sight will not let me link to. When I get time I will copy it here.

In the mean time YOU tell ME how high the sun in that photo is!
And tell me how it could possible be just above a lake in Scotland aver 6,000 km  NORTH of the equator.


So many FEers are quick to find little (imaginary) holes in the Heliocentric Globe, but refuse point blank to answer legitimate questions about their own model - mainly because most Globe supporters know more about you model than YOU do!

Come on prove me wrong!

Wow Rab just detroyed your argument

Do a quick google search on Crepuscular rays, should help your understanding.

Smoking wreckage of an argument.

No one replied to my question in the Mythbusters thread... so I came here because the Moon is awesome.  I wasn't going to post, but then someone ("Space Cowgirl" - which is a great name) decided to refer to me and some other folks as "globularists" and I was absolutely tickled by the phrase.  Seriously, I love it.

What I don't love is that I am having trouble telling when the Flat Earth supporters are being serious or trying to troll... it's not particularly upsetting, I thought the moon shrimp (err, sorry... moonshramps) discussion was delightful.  I'm supporting her term because she introduced me to "globularists" as a word, so she gets my support.

Oh right, derailing...

To "Charming Anarchist": rainbows aren't holograms, natural or otherwise, hologram implies three dimensions which rainbows don't have.  At best they can be described as a projection, depending on the context.  I'm not sure what the FET (Flat Earth Theory... is that the right acronym?) thinks about rainbows, but they're caused by the diffraction of light - as evidenced when light travels through a crystal (or water, or some other objects I'm sure).  Your floating penny thing is a hologram, but the penny actually exists in that example - where is the "real" Moon in your floating Moon/hologram scenario?  And goodness me, what size of a mirror are they using to create that Houdini?  If "satanic scientists" can't imagine its size... can you at least give us some context?  If I shine a bright enough light up there, will it reflect back to somewhere on Flat Earth?

To "jroa": do Flat Earthers not believe in spectroscopy?  This conveniently ties into "Charming Anarchist's" comment because it is a method to determine what atoms/elements have light passing through them since they all separate into distinct color patterns.  Light and atoms are consistent across the Earth (or "Universe" to the globularists) so they act as a fingerprint.  In this way, we can tell what the tenuous atmosphere of the Moon is made of... despite how thin it truly is.  For the record, I'm not arguing that there is no life there.  Personally, I think it's highly unlikely, but I'm excited about what might be near the polar ice caps (moonshramps!), this is mostly to determine where the line between each belief's science fiction and science fact can be drawn... spectroscopy is firmly in the globularist science fact realm.

To "JohnRozz": please stop yelling (specifically in post #95), you seem like a fine fellow but seriously... inside voice and we can chat about how the Sun (and all stars!) work.  Except Death Stars, I don't want you using it to crack the Charming Anarchist's mirror.

To "rabinoz": you are *way* better at formatting in this thing that I am.  I haven't used a forum since AOL (pre-2004), so you'll have to forgive my lack of quotations and so forth (though it seems pretty easy, there are a *ton* of options at the top).  It's my second post here, I don't want to get too crazy, but I like your style, I'll work up to that - it's much more eye catching that what I think this un-formatted wall of text will be.

Hopefully I get an answer or two, which would be an answer or two more than I got to my last question.  I figured if I scattershot a bunch of them at different people, the odds that someone would respond and engage in a lively debate (minus the yelling, JR).

To "rabinoz": you are *way* better at formatting in this thing that I am.  I haven't used a forum since AOL (pre-2004), so you'll have to forgive my lack of quotations and so forth (though it seems pretty easy, there are a *ton* of options at the top).  It's my second post here, I don't want to get too crazy, but I like your style, I'll work up to that - it's much more eye catching that what I think this un-formatted wall of text will be.

Thanks, but you might also note that I have been accused (often justifiably I am afraid) of "abusing" formatting! So yes, I have messed up a lot too!
Often a lot of each. Mind you some like the formatting some don't.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 16, 2016, 08:45:52 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 06:13:01 PM

Quote from: InfamousCat on May 14, 2016, 06:10:06 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 14, 2016, 05:20:48 PM

Quote from: InfamousCat on May 14, 2016, 05:16:34 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 08, 2016, 09:36:34 AM

Personally I think the lunar life forms cause everything we see on the moon. The lunas (aka moonshramps) flourish when the sun is closest, not from direct sunlight, but from the ambient heat. The moon isn't being eclipsed by a shadow object, but the lunas are completely dormant.

Lunar life forms?... You can't be serious?

Of course I am serious.

Life can't exist on the moon. There is no water, oxygen or atmosphere to support it. There are no such things as lunas or moonshramps, that's gotta be the most ridiculous explanation I have ever heard. You people will come up with any old bullcrap to support your theories

I think you meant to say that you do not know if there is life, water, oxygen, or atmosphere on the moon, and that you have no idea what could be up there or if those are absolute universal requirements for life.  Is that what you meant?

Actually, if the earth was as you say it is, lunas make even less sense.

You make even less sense, sorry bro.   

Oh jroa, what would we do without your insightful replies?

SEE?

sun and moon are the same size.

EVERYTHING IS ELECTRICITY.

here's what you get:

1)the sun and the moon are spinning clockwise above equator
2)they have different speed
3)the moon is flat and has a luminescence of its own, plus reflect some of the sunlight
4)they interact with each other
5)the system balance makes so that when the moon is "up", the sun is "down", and vice-versa.
6)they will never collide 'cause they're totally different objects in their compositions!
DIFFERENT ELECTRICALLY AND THUS MAGNETICALLY.

EVERYTHING IS ELECTRICITY.

SEE?

sun and moon are the same size.

EVERYTHING IS ELECTRICITY.

here's what you get:

1)the sun and the moon are spinning clockwise above equator
2)they have different speed
3)the moon is flat and has a luminescence of its own, plus reflect some of the sunlight
4)they interact with each other
5)the system balance makes so that when the moon is "up", the sun is "down", and vice-versa.
6)they will never collide 'cause they're totally different objects in their compositions!
DIFFERENT ELECTRICALLY AND THUS MAGNETICALLY.

EVERYTHING IS ELECTRICITY.

Lol that was hilarious! I'd like to highlight one specific part of your post:
"5)the system balance makes so that when the moon is "up", the sun is "down", and vice-versa."

Reaaaaally? When does that happen? Because you often see both of them up!

SEE?

sun and moon are the same size.

EVERYTHING IS ELECTRICITY.

here's what you get:

1)the sun and the moon are spinning clockwise above equator
2)they have different speed
3)the moon is flat and has a luminescence of its own, plus reflect some of the sunlight
4)they interact with each other
5)the system balance makes so that when the moon is "up", the sun is "down", and vice-versa.
6)they will never collide 'cause they're totally different objects in their compositions!
DIFFERENT ELECTRICALLY AND THUS MAGNETICALLY.

EVERYTHING IS ELECTRICITY.

And what has any of any of this to do with "lunar eclipses"?

Maybe you should get all these fantastic hypotheses put into "the Wiki ". It makes even less sense the the explanation we are given there.

But surely you must be an undercover Globe supporter trying to whiteant "The Flat Earth Society".
No-one could seriously come with ideas like yours as serious explanations!

No one replied to my question in the Mythbusters thread... so I came here because the Moon is awesome.  I wasn't going to post, but then someone ("Space Cowgirl" - which is a great name) decided to refer to me and some other folks as "globularists" and I was absolutely tickled by the phrase.  Seriously, I love it.

What I don't love is that I am having trouble telling when the Flat Earth supporters are being serious or trying to troll... it's not particularly upsetting, I thought the moon shrimp (err, sorry... moonshramps) discussion was delightful.  I'm supporting her term because she introduced me to "globularists" as a word, so she gets my support.

Hi Alexandria. The forum is filled with globularists, you don't seem like the angry kind, so welcome to the FES!

Moonshramp was a joke name given to the lunas by some very funny trolls. We loved their artwork and calling them moonshramps kinda stuck... but calling them "luna" or referring to them as bioluminescent lifeforms is more proper in the serious discussions.

Sometimes the flat earth supporters are having some fun, which tends to set the angry globularists off on a rampage. They hate fun.

Congratulations, you're doing a wonderful job at ridiculing the whole idea of a Flat Earth.

you work 24/7 for what then?



SMD.

god bless 

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2016, 03:26:30 AM

Congratulations, you're doing a wonderful job at ridiculing the whole idea of a Flat Earth.

you work 24/7 for what then?



SMD.

god bless 

I don't feel safe with this savage on the streets.

Quote from: Alexandria on May 16, 2016, 07:32:52 PM

No one replied to my question in the Mythbusters thread... so I came here because the Moon is awesome.  I wasn't going to post, but then someone ("Space Cowgirl" - which is a great name) decided to refer to me and some other folks as "globularists" and I was absolutely tickled by the phrase.  Seriously, I love it.

What I don't love is that I am having trouble telling when the Flat Earth supporters are being serious or trying to troll... it's not particularly upsetting, I thought the moon shrimp (err, sorry... moonshramps) discussion was delightful.  I'm supporting her term because she introduced me to "globularists" as a word, so she gets my support.

Hi Alexandria. The forum is filled with globularists, you don't seem like the angry kind, so welcome to the FES!

Moonshramp was a joke name given to the lunas by some very funny trolls. We loved their artwork and calling them moonshramps kinda stuck... but calling them "luna" or referring to them as bioluminescent lifeforms is more proper in the serious discussions.

Sometimes the flat earth supporters are having some fun, which tends to set the angry globularists off on a rampage. They hate fun.

Alexandria, please be aware that "lunas" is a minority term not recognised by the majority of forum users. The majority of users prefer to call them ORBISIMS, which is an acronym.

Ugh... Why are these people bringing up crepuscular rays? The whole concept of them being proof for the proximity of the sun is just so poorly thought... If it really was different angles of incidence of sunlight and not simple perspective, then the sun would appear to be lower/higher on the sky at these points. These points are like what, 2km away from each other? Well, it would mean that they would belong in completely different time zones. Yep, time zones 2km across. Just let it go people.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 17, 2016, 07:30:14 AM

Quote from: Alexandria on May 16, 2016, 07:32:52 PM

No one replied to my question in the Mythbusters thread... so I came here because the Moon is awesome.  I wasn't going to post, but then someone ("Space Cowgirl" - which is a great name) decided to refer to me and some other folks as "globularists" and I was absolutely tickled by the phrase.  Seriously, I love it.

What I don't love is that I am having trouble telling when the Flat Earth supporters are being serious or trying to troll... it's not particularly upsetting, I thought the moon shrimp (err, sorry... moonshramps) discussion was delightful.  I'm supporting her term because she introduced me to "globularists" as a word, so she gets my support.

Hi Alexandria. The forum is filled with globularists, you don't seem like the angry kind, so welcome to the FES!

Moonshramp was a joke name given to the lunas by some very funny trolls. We loved their artwork and calling them moonshramps kinda stuck... but calling them "luna" or referring to them as bioluminescent lifeforms is more proper in the serious discussions.

Sometimes the flat earth supporters are having some fun, which tends to set the angry globularists off on a rampage. They hate fun.

Alexandria, please be aware that "lunas" is a minority term not recognised by the majority of forum users. The majority of users prefer to call them ORBISIMS, which is an acronym.

Alexandria, Dino Niel is an angry globularist. He's still mad because one of his posts was moved to Complete Nonsense about 2 months ago. I assure you the term accepted by the Flat Earth theorists is "lunas".