Disk Moon

To summarize:
A) Any theory of the moon has to account for ALL the following things we can observe and take pictures of:

• Phases of the moon (http://astropixels.com/moon/phases2/images/Phases10-5x3w.jpg)
• Lunar eclipses (http://nicmosis.as.arizona.edu:8000/ECLIPSE_WEB/LUNAR_ECLIPSE_DEC2010_MOSAIC_25P_UM.jpg)
• Lunar libration (http://en.es-static.us/upl/2014/06/Moon-libration-latitude-Tycho-1024x381-e1402568891442.jpg)
• Lunar occultation on light and dark limbs (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/Saturn_Emerging_l.jpg) & (http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/18/paulstewart_moonsaturnoccult.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
• Solar eclipses of moon and planets - Sun (http://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/Images/Learn-Explore/Photography-Techniques/2012/Solar-Eclipses-Fred-Espenak/Media/SolarEclipse-Espenak-T01-03_01.jpg) & Venus (http://i.space.com/images/i/000/015/554/i02/venus-transit-gipa.jpg?1330445385) & Mercury (http://www.nasa.gov/mpeg/162384main_mdism.mpeg)
• Earth shine (http://en.es-static.us/upl/2013/12/moon-earthshine-Abhijit-Juvekar-12-1-2013.jpg)

B) The Spherical Earth model (Heliocentric) accounts for ALL these simply and elegantly:

• The Moon is spherical. This naturally causes the phases of the moon (A1) and the libration (A3) as seen from the 8000 mi diameter Earth and the Moon orbit (B2)
• The Moon orbits the Earth in a basically circular orbit at an approx 5 degree inclination to the Earth equator.
• The Earth orbits the Sun. Based on the orbit of the Moon (B2), the Moon gets between the Sun and Earth to produce Solar Eclipses (A5). The Earth gets between the Sun and Moon producing Lunar Eclipses with a circular Earth's shadow cast. (A2)
• The inner planets (Mercury and Venus), depending on the inclination of their orbits, come between the Sun and the Earth and produce transits (Solar Eclipses) A(5)
• The Sun's light bouncing off the Earth lights up the phase shadow of the moon (A6)

There are 4 models of a DISK Moon that require lots of manipulation to fit SOME of the requirements in (A) but not all (specifically A2,A3,A4):

C) Sun theory (assuming the Moon is dark - only lit by Earth Shine (A6)):

• The Sun and Moon are in the sky all the time.
• The Sun's light hits then Moon disk ALL the time except during Solar eclipses.
• The Sun can not produce phase shadows on the Moon disk, just shadows in craters(A1). A disk is an all or nothing deal.
• The Sun can not produce curved phase shadows on the Moon (A1). (C3) and the Sun is round.
• The Sun can not explain how on a disk, you can have libration.(A3)
• The Sun can not produce Lunar Eclipses (A2) - since there is nothing on a DISK Earth that is high enough to block the Sun. The Sun and Moon are on opposite sides of the Earth (i.e. Full Moon)

D) Another light source theory (assuming the Moon is dark originally - only lit by Earth Shine (A6)):

• No external Light Source (LS), other than the Sun that is clearly round 100% of the time, has been observed other than Earth Shine (A6) that is uniform on the phase shadow.
• The Sun must not affect the Moon. There would be no phase shadow on the disk.
• The LS has to be close to the moon to make phases clear and relatively sharp (A1)
• The LS has to change from concave to flat to convex, then convex to flat to concave to account for the shapes of the phases (A1)
• The LS has to be very bright on the moon side (to light up the moon) and totally transparent as viewed from the Earth (we can see moon features and the occultation of planets (A1-A4,A6) and not see this LS??(D1). If it is not over the Moon, we still need to be able to see stars through it.
• The LS must have a sharp edge the shape of the Moons limb so it does not brighten the occulting planets near the Moon's surface (i.e. the planets must have the same brightness coming toward toward and away from the Moon and when they are on the light and dark limbs of the Moon).(A4)
• The LS can not explain how on a disk, you can have libration.(A3)
• The LS must create Lunar Eclipses - be "smart enough" to mimic at specific times of the year, the Earth's curved shadow and make it RED on a FULL MOON. (A2)(as calculated by the spherical/heliocentric model - because that is EXACTLY what we observe)

E) Something that creates the lunar shadow (LSh) theory (assuming the Moon is lit originally - by the Sun):

• The LSh must be between the Earth and the Moon.
• The LSh has to be close to the moon to make phases clear and relatively sharp (A1)
• The LSh has to change from concave to flat to convex, then convex to flat to concave to account for the shapes of the phases (A1)
• The LSh is not pitch black but must lighten the phase shadow to simulate/create Earth shine effect (A6).
• The LSh must have a sharp edge the shape of the Moons limb so it does not darken the occulting planets near the Moon's surface (i.e. the planets must have the same brightness coming toward toward and away from the Moon and when they are on the light and dark limbs of the Moon).
• The LSh can not explain how on a disk, you can have libration.
• The LSh must create Lunar Eclipses - be "smart enough" to mimic at specific times of the year, the Earth's curved shadow and make it RED on a FULL MOON. (A2) It must know when and how to appear during a FULL MOON! (as calculated by the spherical/heliocentric model - because that is EXACTLY what we observe)

F) The Backlit Moon (BM) theory (assuming the Moon produces its own light like the Sun and the phase shadow is not pitch black but somewhat lit (A6)):

• Since no one has been behind the Moon, this can not be proved/disproved by anyone directly.
• The Sun must not affect the Moon. There would be no phase shadow on the disk or at least a very washed out one.
• The BM would need to have a mechanism to make phases clear and relatively sharp (A1)
• The BM would need to have a mechanism to change from concave to flat to convex, then convex to flat to concave to account for the shapes of the phases (A1)
• The BM can not explain how on a disk, you can have libration.
• The BM must be "smart enough" to mimic at specific times of the year, the Earth's shadow and make it RED on a FULL MOON (A2).  (as calculated by the spherical/heliocentric model - because that is EXACTLY what we observe).

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

Might this be called a bit of lunacy ? LOL.  Are these animals of the moonshrimp or moonshramp type ?

Actually, satellites and even people HAVE been to the backside (aka "dark side", but more accurately "Far Side" or "Farside") or the Moon. We've even mapped it and have photographs.

[img]http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/blog/%5Bnid%5D/Moon%20far%20side.jpg[/img[

Quote from: WeissEdel on October 04, 2015, 09:20:25 AM

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

Might this be called a bit of lunacy ? LOL.  Are these animals of the moonshrimp or moonshramp type ?

I don't know what kind of creature they are. Why is a simple explanation laughable? Do you believe life exists only on the underside of the dome?

Actually, satellites and even people HAVE been to the backside (aka "dark side", but more accurately "Far Side" or "Farside") or the Moon. We've even mapped it and have photographs.

I understand - IF you believe we went out to outer space and the Moon, Apollo and satellites are real, and that NASA and others aren't lying/faking pictures. My arguments are giving the Flat Earth people the benefit of the doubt, using their arguments (we never went above like 1000 mi up and all photographs, Apollo and satellites are fake).

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

What caused the moon to be lit? Good but wrong question, its not lit.
Take a rock, turn off the light, shine a flashlight on rock, can you see the rock? Good.

And no, there's no life on the moon, at least as we know it.

I like this - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=130&v=uexZbunD7Jg)

Quote from: WeissEdel on October 04, 2015, 09:20:25 AM

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

What caused the moon to be lit? Good but wrong question, its not lit.
Take a rock, turn off the light, shine a flashlight on rock, can you see the rock? Good.

And no, there's no life on the moon, at least as we know it.

We are not discussing your fantasy Earth model and your bizarre moon, we are discussing the dome. Are you capable of having a discussion without bursting in with what is little more than "I'm right you're wrong na-na-na-na-naa!" or is that too hard for you?

The topic is the "Disk Moon" not the dome. Stop changing the topic.

The topic is the "Disk Moon" not the dome. Stop changing the topic.

Been working on how to ignore an argument, then? A disk may be part of a larger structure.

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

Your arguments are beginning to sound like Testify's did (an he admitted he was a troll, making stuff up for the fun of it)... hmmm

OK, lets discuss your dome.
You say "What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome." then you say "There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise." People can plainly see there is a Moon and have for 1000's of years. Which animals specifically are you talking about? They are climbing the dome from Antarctica ("Climbing is easy.")? Where is your proof of this bizarre theory? - this is just BS (like Testify's moon popping into existence 2000 years ago argument).

FE arguments claim that because the dome is so high, rockets and satellites can't reach it (all pictures are fake) but animals can... BS again. Prove it!

Quote from: Kogelblitz on October 05, 2015, 11:05:39 PM

Quote from: WeissEdel on October 04, 2015, 09:20:25 AM

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

What caused the moon to be lit? Good but wrong question, its not lit.
Take a rock, turn off the light, shine a flashlight on rock, can you see the rock? Good.

And no, there's no life on the moon, at least as we know it.

We are not discussing your fantasy Earth model and your bizarre moon, we are discussing the dome. Are you capable of having a discussion without bursting in with what is little more than "I'm right you're wrong na-na-na-na-naa!" or is that too hard for you?

I'm sorry if I missunderstood what you wrote. But in my defence I was simply stating that the moon is a rock, which we know. And the fact that we have NOT detected life on the moon, yet. Of course the moon being a rock is way more bizzare than it being luminecent animals mating in the sky. I get that now.

Quote from: WeissEdel on October 04, 2015, 09:20:25 AM

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

Your arguments are beginning to sound like Testify's did (an he admitted he was a troll, making stuff up for the fun of it)... hmmm

OK, lets discuss your dome.
You say "What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome." then you say "There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise." People can plainly see there is a Moon and have for 1000's of years. Which animals specifically are you talking about? They are climbing the dome from Antarctica ("Climbing is easy.")? Where is your proof of this bizarre theory? - this is just BS (like Testify's moon popping into existence 2000 years ago argument).

FE arguments claim that because the dome is so high, rockets and satellites can't reach it (all pictures are fake) but animals can... BS again. Prove it!

Hurt my arguments rather than evading. You decide to insult me by comparing me to the troll, and then ignore what I said about climbing. Wow, so rockets can't get to the dome. So? Why does that mean things can't exist on the edges?
I'm not the troll here, if you're struggling this much to understand anything I say.

Quote from: WeissEdel on October 06, 2015, 08:25:59 AM

Quote from: Kogelblitz on October 05, 2015, 11:05:39 PM

Quote from: WeissEdel on October 04, 2015, 09:20:25 AM

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

What caused the moon to be lit? Good but wrong question, its not lit.
Take a rock, turn off the light, shine a flashlight on rock, can you see the rock? Good.

And no, there's no life on the moon, at least as we know it.

We are not discussing your fantasy Earth model and your bizarre moon, we are discussing the dome. Are you capable of having a discussion without bursting in with what is little more than "I'm right you're wrong na-na-na-na-naa!" or is that too hard for you?

I'm sorry if I missunderstood what you wrote. But in my defence I was simply stating that the moon is a rock, which we know. And the fact that we have NOT detected life on the moon, yet. Of course the moon being a rock is way more bizzare than it being luminecent animals mating in the sky. I get that now.

And you default to insults rather than any arguments. You assume your nonsensical floating-glowing-rock model, reject mine because you can't bear to question your assumptions, assume that space agencies are honest, and then bastardize my theory. It's pathetic. If you're so secure in your model why are you incapable of honest discussion?

And, these animals easily climbing the dome from Antarctica are? Prove it...

And, these animals easily climbing the dome from Antarctica are? Prove it...

Never claim to be honest. I have no idea what they are, they live on the dome, not on Earth. Do you really think no animals would evolve to be suited for life up there? I'd guess insects or some cousin of cuttlefish, but I don't know. The proof is in the fact we observe light coming from the dome, but of course you don't accept any proof that points away from your little cosy round Earth.

Got it.. no actual animals.. more BS..

They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once.

• If you have "no idea what they are", how do you know "they" exist?
• They live on the dome - no proof...
• They evolved - no proof...
• NO ONE has observed a single insect or cuttlefish "easily climbing" the dome from Antarctica. - total BS
• The proof for these supposed animals is "light coming from the dome" - total BS
• They live in darkness - no proof ...
• They move in a predicable path - total BS since you don't even know what "they" are
• They migrate - total BS since you don't even know what "they" are

This is just pure BS (i.e. trolling)

See my signature...

Got it.. no actual animals.. more BS..

Quote

They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once.

• If you have "no idea what they are", how do you know "they" exist?
• They live on the dome - no proof...
• They evolved - no proof...
• NO ONE has observed a single insect or cuttlefish "easily climbing" the dome from Antarctica. - total BS
• The proof for these supposed animals is "light coming from the dome" - total BS
• They live in darkness - no proof ...
• They move in a predicable path - total BS since you don't even know what "they" are
• They migrate - total BS since you don't even know what "they" are

This is just pure BS (i.e. trolling)

See my signature...

Never pretend to be honest. Saying that again. You don't understand anything, and you didn't even read my post.

I am not the troll here. Look at your own post history. You lie, and insult, and accuse. I answer questions.

I hope all the FE'ers realize why the FE model must have a FLAT DISK Moon...

It is not because it was measured or observed to be flat (by people being on it)...

It is because, if the Moon is on the Dome and is spherical, it would show different phases as viewed from different places on Earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=130&v=uexZbunD7Jg).

Since the Moon's phases don't change as viewed anywhere on Earth, the Moon (as a sphere) must either revolve around the edge of the disk (Antarctica) that we know does not happen...

Or.. revolving around the equator, give or take, it MUST be a FLAT DISK. So, the flat disk Moon is flat mainly because the Flat Earth theory/model needs it to be.

Now, assuming it is a flat disk, it must account for all the things we observe in the 1st post of this thread.

I hope all the FE'ers realize why the FE model must have a FLAT DISK Moon...

It is not because it was measured or observed to be flat (by people being on it)...

It is because, if the Moon is on the Dome and is spherical, it would show different phases as viewed from different places on Earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=130&v=uexZbunD7Jg).

Since the Moon's phases don't change as viewed anywhere on Earth, the Moon (as a sphere) must either revolve around the edge of the disk (Antarctica) that we know does not happen...

Or.. revolving around the equator, give or take, it MUST be a FLAT DISK. So, the flat disk Moon is flat mainly because the Flat Earth theory/model needs it to be.

Now, assuming it is a flat disk, it must account for all the things we observe in the 1st post of this thread.

Around this point you should consider learning to read responses, explanations, and stop assuming the moon landing is remotely genuine. Or lie, as per usual. You have been answered. Stop moving the goalposts, stop evading.

Your evasion does not make what I wrote untrue. Insulting me doesn't make you right and me wrong...

If what I said is wrong, then why can't the FE model have a spherical moon? It would avoid SO MANY arguments. Can FE'ers prove the Moon is not a sphere?

Observationally, the planets with moons we can see with telescopes are spheres. What makes the Moon so special?

Your evasion does not make what I wrote untrue. Insulting me doesn't make you right and me wrong...

If what I said is wrong, then why can't the FE model have a spherical moon? It would avoid SO MANY arguments. Can FE'ers prove the Moon is not a sphere?

Observationally, the planets with moons we can see with telescopes are spheres. What makes the Moon so special?

Give it up. Your argument is now "Look at these different things! This must mean that something completely different has the same properties!"
And you have the gall to claim I am evading. Yoru questions are answered. Read, respond, and I will be happy to discuss.

Quote from: Kogelblitz on October 06, 2015, 01:32:58 PM

Quote from: WeissEdel on October 06, 2015, 08:25:59 AM

Quote from: Kogelblitz on October 05, 2015, 11:05:39 PM

Quote from: WeissEdel on October 04, 2015, 09:20:25 AM

Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

What caused the moon to be lit? Good but wrong question, its not lit.
Take a rock, turn off the light, shine a flashlight on rock, can you see the rock? Good.

And no, there's no life on the moon, at least as we know it.

We are not discussing your fantasy Earth model and your bizarre moon, we are discussing the dome. Are you capable of having a discussion without bursting in with what is little more than "I'm right you're wrong na-na-na-na-naa!" or is that too hard for you?

I'm sorry if I missunderstood what you wrote. But in my defence I was simply stating that the moon is a rock, which we know. And the fact that we have NOT detected life on the moon, yet. Of course the moon being a rock is way more bizzare than it being luminecent animals mating in the sky. I get that now.

And you default to insults rather than any arguments. You assume your nonsensical floating-glowing-rock model, reject mine because you can't bear to question your assumptions, assume that space agencies are honest, and then bastardize my theory. It's pathetic. If you're so secure in your model why are you incapable of honest discussion?

Yet you seem eager to discuss, but I am incapable of discussing scientific matters with anti scientific people.

Since we are discussing what lights up the Moon, most of the assumptions are the Sun does. As discussed in this thread "Sun and Moon on a Flat Earth", this presents a problem.

Per a Flat Earth model:

• During an equinox, the Sun is above the equator and lights up half the Earth.
• The other half of the Earth is in darkness.
• If it is a FULL Moon, the moon is on the dark side of the Earth, directly across from the Sun.
• Since it is nighttime on that side, the Sun does not shine on that side of the Earth.
• Typically, so the whole Earth does not see the Sun, some sort of "spotlight" is introduced.
• So, exactly how does the Sun NOT light up the Earth, but DOES light up the Moon?

Since we are discussing what lights up the Moon, most of the assumptions are the Sun does. As discussed in this thread "Sun and Moon on a Flat Earth", this presents a problem.

Per a Flat Earth model:

• During an equinox, the Sun is above the equator and lights up half the Earth.
• The other half of the Earth is in darkness.
• If it is a FULL Moon, the moon is on the dark side of the Earth, directly across from the Sun.
• Since it is nighttime on that side, the Sun does not shine on that side of the Earth.
• Typically, so the whole Earth does not see the Sun, some sort of "spotlight" is introduced.
• So, exactly how does the Sun NOT light up the Earth, but DOES light up the Moon?

Too pathetic.

The Sun does not illuminate the moon. No one in this thread has ever proposed that. Take your misrepresentations and your lies elsewhere. That is not relevant to this thread, as no one has offered it as an explanation.
Keep evading and ignoring my explanation, then.

Name calling again... that seems to be the only way you are "right".

If the sun doesn't illuminate the Moon, what does?

What explanation are you referring to?

Name calling again... that seems to be the only way you are "right".

If the sun doesn't illuminate the Moon, what does?

What explanation are you referring to?

Play games, it's all you're good for. Try reading the thread. If you have questions, I will answer. I will not repeat myself because you refuse to read.