Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

The first time i read about flatearth was 7 years ago and i thought, that can't be....... nobody is that stupid.
But there were a few points that i couldn't answer. Things about the solar system hurling through space in a vortex path and the atmosphere not leaking into the largest vacuum ever.

So you just basically admitted to be that stupid after all?

 

Science is a bitch. It has a way of making fools out of flat earth peeps. You can't be serious in this pursuit as you clearly use science in trying to deny it. Your computers are a good example. Any medication you take, and I'm sure it's a lot, is made through scientific means. But of course those scientific examples are ok. It's just those pesky astronomers and physicists that muck things up. If you took any classes, and that's a big IF, you wouldn't be here. Reading is wonderful. Get your head out of your flat earth and read real science because it's protecting even now as you waste time here. 

Science is a bitch. It has a way of making fools out of flat earth peeps. You can't be serious in this pursuit as you clearly use science in trying to deny it. Your computers are a good example. Any medication you take, and I'm sure it's a lot, is made through scientific means. But of course those scientific examples are ok. It's just those pesky astronomers and physicists that muck things up. If you took any classes, and that's a big IF, you wouldn't be here. Reading is wonderful. Get your head out of your flat earth and read real science because it's protecting even now as you waste time here.

Another person who wants to display his arrogance over at the flatearth forums.

"Your computers are a good example" are you a real human being ??

Tesla vs Einstein . One the founding father of real inventions the other the founding father of cosmoligical bullshit.
One hardly mentioned the other seen as the smartest person ever alive.
I ask you politely to reconsider your disgusting behaviour about insinuating the use of medication and other one dimensional reasoning.

Quote from: hoppy on August 22, 2017, 01:22:09 PM

Dutchy, what do you expect from brainwashed drones, something more than google links?

They do not think for themselves, regurgitate google answers, appeals to popular thought. If something doesn't line up to preconceived ideas, it is wrong and you are stupid and or crazy. This has been going on for years on this website. I love it when a new member pops up just in time to ridicule FE when the longtime members are having trouble with a particular member or subject.

Yes it is bizare, but i am afraid i have truly underestimated the amount of brainwashing present among the 'globe' posters over here.
It's like i am talking to internet bots instead of real human beings.like the 'borg' has taken over earth.
The first time i read about flatearth was 7 years ago and i thought, that can't be....... nobody is that stupid.
But there were a few points that i couldn't answer. Things about the solar system hurling through space in a vortex path and the atmosphere not leaking into the largest vacuum ever.
I did not feel any aversion, but curiousity only.
It took me sometime to adapt to the idea of a flatearth, but it made more sense as the months/ years passed by.
The aggressive methods used by the globe gang are frightening and telling.
They are not able to discuss this with an open mind, as i have realised now.
They only know one way and that is their way....... the globe.
Proof for that is that even the tiniest part is non- negotiable about everything.
The globe community is indeed a brainwashed flog and any discussion about the flatearth is futile in every thinkable way.
It is their 'copy paiste internet' way, or no way !

The independent mind seems to be in the minority these days and that's a huge understatement.

I see that you have not realized that you have walked into Plato's cave where the flat Earth is playing. And now have taken a seat, and will defended to the hilt. It is the flat earth, that leaves me with questions that are unanswerable, and why I chose to walk back out of the cave, into the light of the globe Earth. To one of your questions, it is gravity that holds the atmosphere, to the earth.

My eldest son is an historian and he knows a lot about modern history and a faked moonlanding fits the Nixon administration perfectly and so does 9/11 and the neo con agenda.

He may be a historian, but he is clearly quite ignorant when it comes to science and the history of science.
There is no rational reason to think the moon landings were faked. The technical requirements to pull of a con like that would make it harder than going to the moon.

So thanks for admitting you have already damages your children's ability to think critically.

On the otherhand the ancient Greeks seem to understand the earth is a globe by looking to tiny ships they thought had sinking masts over a curvature.
Neither did they have camera's like in your example
Greece has also hundreds of isles that can be seen in good weather over long distances, so a flatearth assumption would be the only logical thing.

No it wouldn't, as they couldn't see all the Isles, and the amount visible would be dependent upon the observers height.

So if anyone would conclude on eyesight that the earth was flat it must have been the Greeks.
No optics, no modern tools, small ships with tiny masts compared the the sailboats of the 17the century.
Little education, extreme supersticion and more.

No. They had optics. They had tools. They had large ships.

So no, they could have easily realised Earth was round.

While modern men still see the earth as flat because it is to big to really see why it is a globe.

Because they don't bother looking and more importantly THINKING about things.

Anyone who bothers thinking about things and combining it with a bit of observation can easily realise Earth is round.

You also seem to be ignoring the other bits of evidence.

But to conclude that 'the Greeks' knew the earth was a sphere is the dumbest thing i've ever heard

Then you clearly haven't been listening to yourself.

I am afraid that creative thinking and an open mind is something the average glober isn't capable of.
Copying the works of others is the end of all discussions.

That would primarily be the FEers, although they can come up with some crazy creative crap to pretend Earth is flat.

Great !! But the moment i ask for even the most simple open discussion a sort of brain freeze occurs.
I am able to do a google search myself and every globular explanation is one page 1-3 of a google query.
But somehow the only thing i receive is some data i can look up myself after 10 minutes.
I want an openminded discussion not a link exchange.

Perhaps you should try having one rather than spouting a bunch of crap then?
Perhaps you can try to explain the eclipse using a FE model, and not just this eclipse, eclipses in general, including both total and annular ones.

I pointed out to Rabinoz that "the Greeks knew the earth was a globe" is simply an invalid claim on all accounts.

No, you didn't, you just spouted a bunch of crap about it.

As if it is a crime to say something stupid.

No. It's only a "crime" to repeatedly say quite similar stupid crap when it has already been refuted, with you just ignoring that refutation.

i am really surprised that people are extremely scared to have an unique opinion of their own

We aren't. The truth is not unique to each individual. There is only one Earth with one shape. All the evidence indicates it is round.
We don't all think that because we are scared to have an opinion of our own. We think that because we care about the truth and it is what all the evidence indicates.

With all of that in mind i simply wanted to state that if we are told that the earth looks flat because it is sooooooo big that we do not detect any curvature on first sight, that the ancient Greeks did not collectively knew the earth to be a globe...... that notion is absolutely insane.

Yes, that notion is absolutely insane. The ancient Greeks didn't just get one look at the globe.

A few elite Greeks may have thought that the earth was a globe, but surely your average fishermen did not .

The average farmer might not have, but the average fisherman, that goes out on the sea likely would have.

Therefor the generalisations about the Greeks are a sign on the wall. It seems such claims are only made because it is convinient.

No, it is to show that you don't need any fancy modern technology like satellites or GPS or the like to figure out Earth is round. It is to point out that even people in Ancient times could figure it out.
It was not to show it was widely accepted back then.

These are more extreme examples of course, but it doesn't take much to understand why such generalisations about whole nations are dubious.

Except they aren't generalisations. They (or at least most) aren't claiming all would do that, just that some did/would.

But there were a few points that i couldn't answer. Things about the solar system hurling through space in a vortex path and the atmosphere not leaking into the largest vacuum ever.

Then perhaps you should have tried actually thinking about them or asking people who might know, rather than dismissing a round Earth.
I am yet to find a single point I couldn't repond to in an honest and rational manner, but I have found plenty that FEers cannot, that a FE model cannot (at best it gets a few points but then causes massive issues with other points).

What is wrong with the solar system hurling through space? What is your issue with it?

The atmosphere does leak to space to some extent, but we are also being bombarded with solar wind from the sun.

But for the most part, why should it?

You are thinking about pressure the wrong way around. Vacuums don't suck. Atmospheres/pressure push(es).
The atmosphere on Earth is pushing. It is holding up the atmosphere above it. The atmosphere above it is less pressurised, and thus pushes less. This is because the atmosphere above compresses the atmosphere below.
By the time you reach the edge of space, the pressure of the atmosphere is so weak it can hardly push anything.

You can also think of it the other way, starting at space and dropping to Earth.
Near the edge of space, gas molecules/atoms act as particles, flying in parabolic/elliptical trajectories. They are pulled down to Earth by gravity. Instead of falling all the way, they hit a gas particle on their way down.
These lower down particles are thus not only pulled to Earth due to their own mass and gravity, but also by the particles above knocking them back down.
This can be thought of them holding up the particles above them. And as it is a gas, this extra force compresses them, just like when you put pressure on an enclosed chamber like a sealed syringe.
These particles likewise fall and hit particles below them, with not only the force of their own weight, but also that of the particles above them, with them transferring it down.
This continues all the way down to Earth, which each thin layer getting denser from all the weight above it, until you get to the surface of Earth where you have the weight of the entire atmosphere (almost) pushing down on it.

Also note that FE has the exact same problem, but no explanation for it.

They are not able to discuss this with an open mind, as i have realised now.

Again, that is the FEers. There are plenty of REers that are quite capable of discussing it with an open mind.

Proof for that is that even the tiniest part is non- negotiable about everything.

Why would reality be negotiable?
Can you negotiate to magically make Earth flat? No. I'm not going to ignore large sections of reality just to pretend Earth is flat.

The globe community is indeed a brainwashed flog and any discussion about the flatearth is futile in every thinkable way.

Once again, you are describing the FEers.

The earth is round and that's that.

Then your work here is done. What group will you go attack next?

Quote from: Badxtoss on August 22, 2017, 11:47:30 AM

But you can observe it.  The ship over the horizon is one way.  Sunrise and set is another.  The fact that the sun can shine upwards under clouds is another.  These are observable and not possible on a flat earth.

That is not what this is about. You could be very right !! But that is another discussion.
My point us that most globers and the clear front runner Rabinoz rely on secondary info.
Great !! But the moment i ask for even the most simple open discussion a sort of brain freeze occurs.
I am able to do a google search myself and every globular explanation is one page 1-3 of a google query.
But somehow the only thing i receive is some data i can look up myself after 10 minutes.
I want an openminded discussion not a link exchange.

I pointed out to Rabinoz that "the Greeks knew the earth was a globe" is simply an invalid claim on all accounts.
He and  some others frequently use secondary info to show me why i am wrong and
why they  are right.
The same happened in the other topic..... nobody seems to be able to speak from his own mind and heart. As if the authenticity and autonomous human ability to have an unique thought no longer exist.
It seems most can only repeat the work of others or in case of most flatearthers a link to other's video's.

As if it is a crime to say something stupid. I rather claim something really stupid than being the moutpiece of authorities that did all the work and thinking.
I have experienced myself to what extend this is happening...... i am really surprised that people are extremely scared to have an unique opinion of their own.

With all of that in mind i simply wanted to state that if we are told that the earth looks flat because it is sooooooo big that we do not detect any curvature on first sight, that the ancient Greeks did not collectively knew the earth to be a globe...... that notion is absolutely insane. A few elite Greeks may have thought that the earth was a globe, but surely your average fishermen did not .

Therefor the generalisations about the Greeks are a sign on the wall. It seems such claims are only made because it is convinient.

When people are using that sort of generalisations ( the Greeks knew the earth was a sphere) you can be certain someone is wrong...

The Jews killed Jesus Christ
The Romans invented the fictional character of JC
Muslims want a worldwide sharia
The Russians would have said something if America faked the moonlandings

These are more extreme examples of course, but it doesn't take much to understand why such generalisations about whole nations are dubious.

Ok you made some fair points.  Perhaps your average Greek did not think the world was a globe, although I would submit that sailors/fishermen would be more likely.
But in your other post you didn't stop there.  You went on to say it was simply made up by bored intellectuals.  No, it was discovered by people who were curious and sought answers.  They made the same observations I made and asked why that would be.
People much smarter than me studied the world around them and found answers.  Sure, the information is ever evolving, that is what science and discovery is about.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 22, 2017, 04:30:35 AM

Quote from: dutchy on August 22, 2017, 12:05:04 AM

I have debunked all your falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts'

My falsehoods? Where have I presented any "falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts"?
You have debunked them? I must have missed that, please show where you managed to do that.

[youtube][/youtube]
Those masts and sails sure seem to disappear 

Your autobot replies mean zero,..... let's see if i can have a normal discussion with you.... not presenting your archived trash.

Hardly seems the way to start "normal discussion with you.... not presenting your archived trash".
Why would what my "archived trash" be any more trash than what I might post now? The shape of the earth has not changed in the last few months.

Many globular spokesmen claim that the earth LOOKS flat because it is so big !
You have to go really high to see something of a curve.

This is brought up many times to convince flatearthers their eyes deceive them and they don't understand how big the globe really is.

Sure, "the earth LOOKS flat because it is so big", though there's a lot more to it than that.
The horizon (at sea anyway) is a perfect circle around the viewer. The distance to that circle can be calculated from the often abused "curvature formula". But the important thing is that from even a fairly high altitude that circle is still almost at eye-level and a circle looked at on edge looks like a straight line.

On the otherhand the ancient Greeks seem to understand the earth is a globe by looking to tiny ships they thought had sinking masts over a curvature.

Tiny ships might disappear sooner, but Even those Greeks had a lot more evidence for the Globe than just "ships disappaering", bit it would make this post much more "tl;dr" than it already is. If you really are interested, make a specific topic for "Ancient Evidence".

Neither did they have camera's like in your example
Greece has also hundreds of isles that can be seen in good weather over long distances, so a flatearth assumption would be the only logical thing.

What has "not having cameras" got to do with it and what height are those islands above sea level?

So if anyone would conclude on eyesight that the earth was flat it must have been the Greeks.
No optics, no modern tools, small ships with tiny masts compared the sailboats of the 17the century.

Not at all, those Greeks had much more evidence than just "small ships with tiny masts".
But sailors "of the 17the century" and much later did, and still do, estimate the distance to other ships and islands as they appear over the horizon.
That's no great secret.

Little education, extreme supersticion and more.

I wouldn't criticise the education of those early Greeks or even the Babylonians, who gave us the basis for astronomy and much of our mathematics.
And look at the mathematics and science from the Greeks, heard of Thales, Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hero, etc.

And you keep coming back as if the Greeks understood the earth to be a globe !

Only because those early Greeks laid the foundations of the Globe, the sizes of earth and moon, and even the distance to the moon and a rough "estimate" of the distance to the sun.
That "distance to the sun" by Aristarchus of Samos was a long long way out, but the important thing is that the distance to the was known within reasonable limits and he placed the sun 15 times that. It should have been about 400 times, but still far far away.

But those "ancient Greeks" were just the start. The Arab countries, Arabia, Persia, Mesopotamia and even India to a large extent "took over" the "Greek model" of the earth. I with put a lot of material in here as you can read a bit on it in
           Re: Is Science the new Religion ? « Reply #213 on: May 28, 2017, 06:56:18 PM »
and     Re: John « Reply #29 on: May 23, 2017, 08:10:53 AM » especially the bit about The Venerable Bede.

While modern men still see the earth as flat because it is to big to really see why it is a globe.

No, a few flat earthers "see the earth as flat".

But something that few flat earthers take seriously is astronomy, and much evidence supporting the Globe and especially the Heliocentric Globe comes from astronomy, right from Babylonian and Greek times till the present day.
The early Chinese, Incas and Babylonians and people like that did believe the earth was flat and did study astronomy.
But, I doubt that you could find any "Flat Earth Astronomers" since a few centuries BC, because astronomy simply blows any idea of a flat earth out of the water.

Up until 300 or 400 years ago most, though not all, did believe the earth stationary, ie a Geocentric Globe.
Even Tycho Brahe, undoubtedly one of the best and most careful astronomers still believed in the Geocentric Globe.
He did this because if the Copernican Heliocentric Globe were true, he should see "stellar parallax", the apparent movement if stars as the earth orbited the sun.

Therefor your absolute gibberish about the Greeks is not only annoying, it is false, far fetched and who the hell are the Greeks ?
Besides a few mythical figures you know nothing about them...... and neither do i.

So sorry about "absolute gibberish about the Greeks . . . . . annoying" you, but it is neither false, nor far fetched and who the Greeks were an important part of history - even if you don't accept their findings!

But to conclude that 'the Greeks' knew the earth was a sphere is the dumbest thing i've ever heard......and a handfull of elite induviduals do not account for 'the Greeks'

I am afraid it is simply beyond you to even comprehend this grounded logic.

So that is what you call a civilised discussion, claiming you are "afraid it is simply beyond" me "to even comprehend this grounded logic"?

I still dont understand why Resistance.Is.Futile tried so hard to prove this "black sun" caused solar eclipses, other flat earthers seemed fine with the fact that the moon caused of solar eclipses.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71690.0

Quote from: kennykirklan on August 22, 2017, 03:04:12 PM

The earth is round and that's that.

Then your work here is done. What group will you go attack next?

LOL,  there's a herd of moose over there that look like they need a shake-up.   Giddyup.

Moose?  Meese?  Mooses? 

I still dont understand why Resistance.Is.Futile tried so hard to prove this "black sun" caused solar eclipses, other flat earthers seemed fine with the fact that the moon caused of solar eclipses.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71690.0

Um,  maybe it's because he's a troll?   

BTW,  your annoying signature takes up most of the screen,  do you really need that big of a pyramid?    Cheops look out.

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 22, 2017, 08:34:45 PM

I still dont understand why Resistance.Is.Futile tried so hard to prove this "black sun" caused solar eclipses, other flat earthers seemed fine with the fact that the moon caused of solar eclipses.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71690.0

Um,  maybe it's because he's a troll?   

BTW,  your annoying signature takes up most of the screen,  do you really need that big of a pyramid?    Cheops look out.

Deal with it, people need to hear the truth that the NASA NAZI ZIONIST FREEMASON ILLUMINATI SATANIST OCUULTIST AGENDA IS HIDING!

RESEARCH PYRAMID EARTH!!

(nah, seriously, sorry bout that)

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

Your explanation is not satisfactory.

There is nothing unsatisfactory about my explanation, at least not to any honest, rational, intelligent person.

If you think there is something wrong with it, quote the part you think is wrong and explain why it is wrong.
Stop just repeating the same refuted BS.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

Your nonsense insults people's intelligence.

Nope, that would be yours.
I'm not the one spouting nonsense.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

Everyone has seen the waxing crescent moon in the sky in the daytime in direct line of the sun just as the new moon will be in the states tomorrow several hours after midday.

No they haven't. If it was in the direct line of the sun, it would block out the sun resulting in an eclipse. Not everyone has seen that.
Instead what they have seen is the moon close to the sun as a crescent moon, with the crescent getting smaller as it gets closer to the sun, exactly as you would expect for a RE.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

If your model was correct and not a deception the whole moon ( full moon )would be illuminated by the Sun's light and as such the full moon would be visable.

No, that would be your deception regarding the HC model, or if the moon was a flat disc (where either it would be entirely illuminated as a circle/ellipse or it would be entirely dark.
In the HC model, as the sun is very far away, 400 times further than the moon (roughly), one hemisphere would be illumined, the hemisphere which faces the sun.
As the moon gets closer and closer to a new moon (i.e. closer and closer to the sun), this hemisphere is pointing more and more away from us (and towards the sun). At a perfect new moon (i.e. solar eclipse), it is facing directly away, and thus the moon is not illuminated (except by reflection from Earth).

So no, if the HC model was correct (which it is, at least when discussing just the solar system), then you would only expect a full moon when the moon is on the opposite side of Earth, such that from the moon the sun and Earth are in the same direction.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

Everyone can verify for themselves that when the full moon is visible that the light it provides is uniformly consistent on it's entire visible surface which would be impossible if it was a sphere reflecting the sun's light as your heliocentric brethren claim ;  it is only possible for a flat disc to reflect light in such a manor and not a sphere that is covered in dust.

Nope. That only applies if it is a specular reflection. It is not, or if the light source is very close to the sphere making the path lengths significantly different
Instead it is diffuse reflection or scattering from distant light so the path length difference is negligible. When a sphere scatters light like that it is uniform in all directions, for example, this styrofoam ball presumably illuminated by sunlight:
https://www.dhresource.com/webp/m/albu_1023834140_00-1.0x0/wholesale-we-have-all-different-sized-styrofoam.jpg

Where even the scattered light from the atmosphere and ground make it difficult to detect the bottom is darker.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

The earth on your model is also four times bigger than the sun so when the moon is at it's highest elevation possible at midnight the sun would be illuminating the opposite side of your imaginary Globe.

Only during a perfect alignment, which results in a lunar eclipse.
With imperfect alignment, even only slight, as I showed before, the moon is well out of Earth's shadow.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

On your heliocentric model you claim the moon rotates.

And it does.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

Everyone can verify for themselves that we only ever see one side of the moon regardless of the time of day or night it is visible.

BULLSHIT!

Everyone can verify for themselves, by taking photos of the moon as the month progresses, that it wobbles.

Regardless, as the moon is in a different position, the only way to see the same side is if it rotates to keep the same side facing us.

So even if they did verify that we always see the same side, they would be verifying that it rotates.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

No one has " EVER " seen the alleged dark side of the moon and no one " EVER " will this is because it is a fabrication used to reinforce your Heliocentric deception and it doesn't exist.

Yes they have.
And it isn't the dark side, just the far side.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

This video describes how and why the moon is just a luminary.

Put in the effort and provide the argument here, or I will just dismiss as it childish nonsense which you can't even be bothered wasting your time on.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

You are no better than old Rab and old Rab is no match for me and you will learn like Rab that debating your old tired worn out heliocentric model with me is pure folly.

Really? Because I seem to be wiping the floor with you, with you just spouting childish crap any intelligent child could refute. So if Rab is better than me, I would hate to image what he does to you.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

Mark 4:19

So now resorting to more delusional bullshit?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 04:26:11 PM

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

But you think your strange blood cult of Christianity is true, even though it contradicts itself and reality?

You speak absolute nonsense.


You are fooling no one.

You Strange people must realise that anyone of average intelligence and above will see your heliocentric model to be a false deception and as such anyone that reads these posts will not struggle to determine who is telling the truth.

You know very well my description regarding the waxing crescent moon was not about the solar eclipse.

Again you Heliocentrics have to employ the use of misdirection.

Anyone that is telling the truth or even " thinks " they are telling the truth have no need to employ such methods.

You also say that people can verify the wobble of the moon and that this wobble proves the moon rotates; this is nonsense we always see the same elevation of the moon.

You then say that people can constantly observe one side of the moon and that this proves it's rotation.

It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.

You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.

You claim to have wiped the floor with me ; you are incorrect.

You have arrived at the destination that I have designed.

Let's talk about the Lunar eclipse 

You claim that on your Strange Heliocentric model for the lunar eclipse to occur that the sun earth and moon are in line.

So therfore the moon is directly behind the earth.

The Moon is 3.6 times smaller than the earth. ( 3.6 or 3 6's or 666) 

Light travels in straight lines.

How is it that the moon is still easily observed during the lunar eclipse because if your model was correct the earth would be blocking the sun's light that you claim illuminates the Moon making it visible so it would be impossible to see the moon.


If this was the case the selenelion would also be even more impossible.

A selenelion is where the sun and moon are visible in the sky at the same time during a lunar eclipse which completely debunks your imaginary Globe.

It is impossible for light to bend all the way round your imaginary Globe as light travels in straight lines;  not even a child would believe such nonsense.

Here is a video of the selenelion lunar eclipse.



I will also point out that you have named this impossible lunar eclipse after one of your gods.

Selene the moon God sister of Helios.

Lol.

Lol.


https://www.greekmythology.com/Titans/Selene/selene.html

Luke 8:17

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Awesome video "Using my brain is futile". There really is no better proof of a spherical earth than a selenelion. They can ONLY occur just before sunset or just after sunrise, revealing the clearly spherical earth causing the lunar eclipse. Good work!

<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>

What makes that impossible? 

Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth.  Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?

Mike

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 22, 2017, 10:10:41 PM

<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>

What makes that impossible? 

Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth.  Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?

Mike

Lol.

Because on your Strange Heliocentric model the lunar eclipse only occurs when all three spheres are in line.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

They are not able to discuss this with an open mind, as i have realised now.
They only know one way and that is their way....... the globe.
Proof for that is that even the tiniest part is non- negotiable about everything.

I see that you are praising yourself for independend and open mind. How ironic. Because all I see here is your fixation with one idea and refusal to accept anything that shows otherwise. And straight denial of everything that is out there. The round earth and all details are available for discussion if you are just able to open your mind to something else. For now all discussion go in predermined way - you start with the predetermined position that something is true(earth is flat/moonlandings were faked) and you defend your position i nevery way, not discussing it. And if anyone tries to show otherwise then they are close minded because they refuse to accept you "open minded" fixation.

He may be a historian, but he is clearly quite ignorant when it comes to science and the history of science.
There is no rational reason to think the moon landings were faked. The technical requirements to pull of a con like that would make it harder than going to the moon.

So thanks for admitting you have already damages your children's ability to think critically

Like i clearly said he isn't interrested much !
That means he didn't really researched it himself,...... because when you are interrested you are going to do some research don't you ?
Nixon would lie about everything so that's a given. The moonlanding footage looks so cheap and fake it isn't even funny in 2017. I showed him the rendezvous between the LM with the CM and he replied why i showed him a seventies space sci fi with such bad effects.
I told him that was supposedly real !!!!
I can't help you that your human abilities to descern reality from fakery are totally absent.
But for the record, my son isn't really into the moonlandings..... before you jump to conclusions again.

No it wouldn't, as they couldn't see all the Isles, and the amount visible would be dependent upon the observers height.

Ah .....you are not familiar with ordinary people are you ? No problem.... but i grew up in the fishermen's town Katwijk in the Netherlands. The locals used to have their own harbor at the mouth of the old Rijn river. Because of a modern canal the fleet of fisher boats was relocated to IJmuiden a good 50 km up North. We were part of the locals as a family and i never heard anyone talking about the globe ever, but what i did hear on quite a few occasions that people during extremely good weather saw large seaships nearing the Pier of IJmuiden.
That is of course due to the fact that IJmuiden was their own base and therefor people starting to look accross the flat beach North.
The curvature calculator proofs this is impossible, but like many globers there is a huge discrepancy between internet knowledge and real life experience.
The normal Greeks ( 99% of the population) would have thought the earth to be flat !!

No. They had optics. They had tools. They had large ships.

So no, they could have easily realised Earth was round

I didn't realise the Nikon P900 was that old

Because they don't bother looking and more importantly THINKING about things.
Anyone who bothers thinking about things and combining it with a bit of observation can easily realise Earth is round.
You also seem to be ignoring the other bits of evidence.

False !!!! Everyone is an extremely limited group of people who hardly go outside to chat with the locals.
Maybe they convince eachother that 'everyone' can easily understand the earth to be spherical, but you really should go outside more and understand that ordinary people have their own reality.
Ask about the coriolis effect on the street and understand why the globe and it's proof is a hypothetical wet dream of a few intellectuals who can hardly explain the real data involved themselves...... let alone your average Joe.

Perhaps you should try having one rather than spouting a bunch of crap then?
Perhaps you can try to explain the eclipse using a FE model, and not just this eclipse, eclipses in general, including both total and annular ones.

You are in denial about the very basics, what makes you think you would be open minded about complicatet things like the flatearth eclips ?  The Apollo topic is 15 pages of proof that even the hardcore written testimonies of spokesmen and astronauts seem all nice and dandy for globers , while they are conficting as much as possible.
It has saved  me a lot of time and energy to play chess on several boards.
An openminded discussion with globers is impossible on all accounts.

No. It's only a "crime" to repeatedly say quite similar stupid crap when it has already been refuted, with you just ignoring that refutation.

I don't know what 'they' did to you, but you of all peolle and the limes of Rabinoz haven't refuted anything.
Globers play the auto repeat , but that is not 'refuted'.
To refute an argument you have to engage in a discussion, something you aren't able to do.
There is only one option, 'flathead read this link and accept'.

We aren't. The truth is not unique to each individual. There is only one Earth with one shape. All the evidence indicates it is round.
We don't all think that because we are scared to have an opinion of our own. We think that because we care about the truth and it is what all the evidence indicates.

Ah....  you don't seem to understand 'evidence and indication'
Let me as foreigner explain your language to you.
Absolute proof is when evidence and indication become indisputable facts.
So were is the proof of your globe ? Because that is what matters.

The atmosphere does leak to space to some extent, but we are also being bombarded with solar wind from the sun.

you don't have to go on 'autobot'. I used those  examples only to indicate where i was at the time when i first discovered flatearth.

This 'explaination' proofs what i have said many times.
You are unable to discuss things in a normal way, only to go in 'autobot' mode.
 My example doesn't  need an explaination, it was an example of a specific moment in time in relation to what i encountered back then.

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 23, 2017, 01:32:56 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 22, 2017, 10:10:41 PM

<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>

What makes that impossible? 

Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth.  Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?

Mike

Lol.

Because on your Strange Heliocentric model the lunar eclipse only occurs when all three spheres are in line.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

I'm sorry but how does that have anything to do with rotation rate of the moon?  In a heliocentric model the rotation rate of the moon would have nothing to do with whether or not it comes between the sun and the earth. 

So, I'll ask again, he says knowing he won't get an answer, assuming a heliocentric model, why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?

Mike

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 23, 2017, 01:40:17 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 23, 2017, 01:32:56 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 22, 2017, 10:10:41 PM

<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>

What makes that impossible? 

Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth.  Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?

Mike

Lol.

Because on your Strange Heliocentric model the lunar eclipse only occurs when all three spheres are in line.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

I'm sorry but how does that have anything to do with rotation rate of the moon?  In a heliocentric model the rotation rate of the moon would have nothing to do with whether or not it comes between the sun and the earth. 

So, I'll ask again, he says knowing he won't get an answer, assuming a heliocentric model, why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?

Mike

I didn't even bother to read your post.

I have already explained this quite clearly.



It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.

You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Quote from: dutchy on August 22, 2017, 02:47:52 PM

They are not able to discuss this with an open mind, as i have realised now.
They only know one way and that is their way....... the globe.
Proof for that is that even the tiniest part is non- negotiable about everything.

I see that you are praising yourself for independend and open mind. How ironic. Because all I see here is your fixation with one idea and refusal to accept anything that shows otherwise. And straight denial of everything that is out there. The round earth and all details are available for discussion if you are just able to open your mind to something else. For now all discussion go in predermined way - you start with the predetermined position that something is true(earth is flat/moonlandings were faked) and you defend your position i nevery way, not discussing it. And if anyone tries to show otherwise then they are close minded because they refuse to accept you "open minded" fixation.

I have discussed the moonlandings to the extremes, but if you are not even willing to acknowledge that some claims are indeed conflicting what else is there to discuss ?
I also suggested to ask people who aren't involved, but you have only one option......  your way.
If this was the globeearth forum, you would have been right, then i should have understood the very nature of such a forum.
But this is the flatearth forum, where people have dismissed the globe for various reasons.
It 's bloody arrogant of you to haunt us all the way in our domain and tell us what to think !
You could listen and disagree of course, but claiming a leading position and start lecturing us about what to believe is off the limits.

If you disagree with the flatearth, simply leave or have the decency to openly engage in the discussion as the invited party...... something i would do if i joined a forum that spreads a conviction i do not support.

You are so closed minded that even this doesn't make sense to you.

I have discussed the moonlandings to the extremes, but if you are not even willing to acknowledge that some claims are indeed conflicting what else is there to discuss ?

And I have said that if claims are conflicting then that doesn't mean that they can't be both true which you just can't understand. I don't get why.

I also suggested to ask people who aren't involved, but you have only one option......  your way.

No, I don't have may way. I look things presented to me and make decisions based on them. But when asked from you or flat earthers about facts you don't get them, You get opinions and speculations. And sometimes straight lies, like sun getting smaller when it sets. Or that crepuscular rays show that sun is near above the clouds.

If you disagree with the flatearth, simply leave or have the decency to openly engage in the discussion as the invited party...... something i would do if i joined a forum that spreads a conviction i do not support.

I don't disagree with the flat earth. I usually just want some reasonable evidence and proof for that but... no one has even presented something that has reasonable explanations and is shown to work on flat earth and not in round earth.

You are so closed minded that even this doesn't make sense to you.

Here we go again. Open to other ideas means close minded and when you refuse all evidence and are fixated to one idea then it means open minded.

It's not hard to understand. Relative to some standing on the earth, the sun takes 24 hours to go around. The moon takes a bit longer because it's orbiting the same way the earth spins, so it goes slower across the sky.
So while the moon still travels in the same direction, the faster moving sun catches up with in.

You know very well my description regarding the waxing crescent moon was not about the solar eclipse.

I don't care what it was about, it was bullshit, and I pointed out why.

Again you Heliocentrics have to employ the use of misdirection.
Anyone that is telling the truth or even " thinks " they are telling the truth have no need to employ such methods.

Well thanks for indirectly admitting you are not telling the truth nor do you think you are.
You are the one using misdirection here, not me, for example:

You also say that people can verify the wobble of the moon and that this wobble proves the moon rotates; this is nonsense we always see the same elevation of the moon.

I was using it to show the moon is a ball, and refute your claim that the same side always faces us.

And no, it isn't nonsense, we do not always see the same "elevation" (whatever you are trying to mean by that) of the moon.

Here is an example:

You then say that people can constantly observe one side of the moon and that this proves it's rotation.

No, I say for the most part they do, and that is because it does prove rotation. Can you explain why it doesn't? Perhaps explain how you can view something from multiple angles, and see the same side of it, without it turning.

It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.

Why?
It is circling us.
Try having someone start facing something off in the distance, and then walk around you. Have them keep facing the same way though, so some times they will be walking forwards, sometimes backwards, sometimes sideways or at an angle.
Do you only see one side of them? No. Instead you see them from all angles (in 2D).

Now try it again, this time have them turn as they walk around, so they are always walking forwards.
Now do you only see one side of them? Pretty much.

You can also try it yourself, with a stationary object. Look at this object from different angles, without turning it. Do you see the same side? No.

It is impossible for an object to circle you or for you to circle the object and you to only see the one side, UNLESS IT ROTATES!!! Do you understand that?

You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.

No lunar orbit is 27 days.
The length will vary depending upon how you measure it.

It's orbit is closer to 27.321661 days.
However, due to the motion of Earth along its orbit, this isn't a full "cycle" of the moon. Instead, it needs to travel a bit further, so its synodic period is roughly (or on average) 29.530589 days. This will vary due to Earth's varying orbital speed.
The reason this makes lunar months appear to be different lengths is that we assign a day to the start or end of a lunar month, such as based upon when the moon will be full. (this can also cause variations between different locations on Earth).
If you have a new moon just after midnight, the new lunar month starts then. 29 days later, you will get another new moon, except instead of at mid night it is roughly at mid day, making the lunar month appear to be 29 days long. But then after another 29.5 days (I know, it is slightly longer), you will get another new moon. This will put it into the next day, making that lunar month appear to be 30 days long.
For example, if you look at the dates of the new moons for 2017, they average roughly 29.5 days.

So no, all lunar orbits are the same length in the HC model, at least to any reasonable error.
And why would them rising and setting at different times be a problem? Remember, that is a key reason why you are full of shit regarding your "analysis" of the expected direction of the path of the eclipse.

You claim to have wiped the floor with me ; you are incorrect.
You have arrived at the destination that I have designed.

No, I am correct. If you designed to have the floor wiped with you then you are just admitting you are a troll. You have repeatedly failed to mount any rational defence and instead just repeat the same refuted BS.

Let's talk about the Lunar eclipse 

Where you just repeat the same refuted BS?
How about you first go back and read what i have already said.

You claim that on your Strange Heliocentric model for the lunar eclipse to occur that the sun earth and moon are in line.

There is nothing strange about the model.
That also isn't what it says. The sun, Earth and moon do not need to be in perfect alignment. All it requires is that the moon is in the shadow of Earth.
At the distance of the moon, the Earth's shadow is significantly larger than the moon.
Remember, the light from the sun is almost a straight line, and the sun has an angular diameter of roughly 0.5 degrees. That means the umbra shrinks with a slope of 0.5 degrees.
That means for every km out, the umbra shrinks by roughly 8.7 m on each side. So by the time the shadow gets to the moon, some 400 000 km away (approx), it will have shrunk by roughly 3491 km.
As we are just looking at one side, the simplest thing to compare this to is the radius.
The radius of Earth is 6371 km. That means the radius of the shadow would shrink to 2880 km. The radius of the moon is 1737 km. So the shadow is roughly 1.7 times as large (in width) than the moon.

So it doesn't require perfect alignment.

So therfore the moon is directly behind the earth.

And from the above, NO IT IS NOT.
They are not directly aligned.

How is it that the moon is still easily observed during the lunar eclipse because if your model was correct the earth would be blocking the sun's light that you claim illuminates the Moon making it visible so it would be impossible to see the moon.

Because Earth has an atmosphere that scatters light. This is also why the moon appears red and why the sky appears blue normally and red at low angles to the sun (e.g. during sunrise and sunset)
The atmosphere scatters blue light a lot and red light not so much. This produces an effect similar to bending a small amount of red light around Earth so it lights up the moon.

If this was the case the selenelion would also be even more impossible.

Again, it isn't the case.

A selenelion is where the sun and moon are visible in the sky at the same time during a lunar eclipse which completely debunks your imaginary Globe.

Nope. Not in the slightest.
This was already explained before.
There are several factors which contribute it. The first is refraction, which alone allows you to see them.

It is impossible for light to bend all the way round your imaginary Globe as light travels in straight lines;  not even a child would believe such nonsense.

No, a child would believe things like light only travels in straight lines.
Anyone that has looked at an object in water or through a lens will know that is wrong.
Light can bend due to refraction.
Almost everyone knows that.

Here is a video of the selenelion lunar eclipse.

No, that is a video of a bunch of ignorant crap.
It doesn't even show a true selenelion eclipse.
You cannot see both the fully eclipsed moon and the sun at the same time.
Instead you just get the sky starting to light up from the sun.

Try again.

Regardless, they just lend further weight to the RE/HC model.

If Earth was flat, and the lunar eclipse had nothing to do with going into Earth's shadow, why can't we see lunar eclipses when both the sun and moon are high in the sky?
Why do we only ever get them with full moons and only just get to see them both at the same time, if you are in the right spot?

I will also point out that you have named this impossible lunar eclipse after one of your gods.

I have no god.

Luke 8:17
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

You keep repeating that line, but you are yet to show it is a religion nor are you able to show it is false.
And yet you think your strange blood cult is true and leads credibility to your argument.
Grow up.

Nixon would lie about everything so that's a given.

No, he wouldn't. Like all politicians, he would lie about loads of things, but not everything, and not everything he says will be a lie.

The moonlanding footage looks so cheap and fake it isn't even funny in 2017.

Yes, comparing the moon landing footage to what we have now, it looks cheap and fake.
How about you try an honest comparison?
Compare it to what we had back then.

There is also the issue of a lot of effects for modern "sci fi" being pure bullshit.

I can't help you that your human abilities to descern reality from fakery are totally absent.

I can. There is nothing from the moon landings to indicate it is fake.

We were part of the locals as a family and i never heard anyone talking about the globe ever

Perhaps because they didn't realise there were morons that thought Earth was flat.
Did you ever ask them if they thought Earth was flat or round?

but what i did hear on quite a few occasions that people during extremely good weather saw large seaships nearing the Pier of IJmuiden.

You mean on rare occasions where you get serious issues with refraction like looming?

The curvature calculator proofs this is impossible

No it doesn't.

The normal Greeks ( 99% of the population) would have thought the earth to be flat !!

PROVE IT!

If you can't, stop saying such crap.

I didn't realise the Nikon P900 was that old

Did I say they had modern cameras? No.
So how about you cut it out with the BS?

Quote

Because they don't bother looking and more importantly THINKING about things.
Anyone who bothers thinking about things and combining it with a bit of observation can easily realise Earth is round.
You also seem to be ignoring the other bits of evidence.

False !!!! Everyone is an extremely limited group of people who hardly go outside to chat with the locals.

Nope. Completely true.
It doesn't take anything magical to realise that Earth is round.
All it takes is some simple observations and thinking. Anyone can do it.
If you think Earth is flat, it is either because you haven't made these simple observations, or because you aren't honestly and rationally thinking about it.

You are in denial about the very basics, what makes you think you would be open minded about complicatet things like the flatearth eclips ?

No, I'm not. That would be you, denying even basic things like the Greeks having optics.

The Apollo topic is 15 pages of proof that even the hardcore written testimonies of spokesmen and astronauts seem all nice and dandy for globers , while they are conficting as much as possible.

Are you trying to discsuss the moon landings or the shape of Earth?

An openminded discussion with globers is impossible on all accounts.

Yes, because you aren't interested in having one as it may require you to admit you were wrong and that Earth is in fact round.

The globers aren't the problem.

I don't know what 'they' did to you, but you of all peolle and the limes of Rabinoz haven't refuted anything.

I have refuted pretty much every FE argument I have seen here.

To refute an argument you have to engage in a discussion, something you aren't able to do.
There is only one option, 'flathead read this link and accept'.

Not really.
To have a debate you need to engage in discussion, which is something the FEers are unwilling to do, at least not an honest, rational one.
To refute an argument I just need to explain why it is wrong, providing evidence if necessary, and guess what? I HAVE, repeatedly.

Again, the only reason we are not able to engage in a discussion here is because the FEers don't want it.

For example, Inky decided to put me on his block list because I refuted him too many times.
Sandy will keep spouting massive amounts of crap, ignoring what people say.
InFlatEarth will just repeat the same refuted BS again and again.
Skepti will just lie and insult people and claim they aren't willing to think when they ask him questions which show his model to be flawed.
JRowe and Jane (to a lesser extent) will do the same.

So how can I have a discussion when the FEers clearly don't want it?

Even you, rather than discuss any alleged evidence you have, you bitch and moan about how the FEers allegedly act.
Meanwhile I have been refuting all the crap RIP has been spouting.

Ah....  you don't seem to understand 'evidence and indication'

No, I do.

Let me as foreigner explain your language to you.
Absolute proof is when evidence and indication become indisputable facts.
So were is the proof of your globe ? Because that is what matters.

Not really. Rational people don't need proof. No "fact" is completely indisputable. This universe existing in reality is not even indisputable fact. It is based upon assumption that it isn't an hallucination or dream or matrix like environment.
And there is no way to be certain that it isn't.

So instead, rational people look for evidence which shows something to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, and that has been provided for a RE.

However you can show things to be indisputable crap, showing that they are false. Although sometimes they do need caveats.
For example, with standard laws of physics (i.e. no magic bendy light which magically defies all known physics), Earth cannot be flat with the sun always above some point, but still set for other observers.
This, along with various other things, like the angle of elevation of other stars, other objects setting past the horizon, the existence of 2 celestial poles always 180 degrees apart, Earth's shadow on the moon and so on are all evidence which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Earth is round.

Of course, it could hypothetically be flat and just have magic bendy light and bendy space such that it acts exactly like a round Earth would.

you don't have to go on 'autobot'. I used those  examples only to indicate where i was at the time when i first discovered flatearth.

I didn't. But I notice you just ignore it.
Are you going to admit you were completely wrong in your thinking, or will you try and refute what I said?

This 'explaination' proofs what i have said many times.
You are unable to discuss things in a normal way, only to go in 'autobot' mode.
 My example doesn't  need an explaination, it was an example of a specific moment in time in relation to what i encountered back then.

If I didn't answer it you likely would have just asserted that I ignored it because I was unable to answer it.

Others might be like you, looking into FE BS for the first time. They may see that and think like you that RE can't answer it and thus go down your path of stupidity and reject the RE and accept the BS that is FE. So I respond to it and show how that isn't a problem for a RE at all. That way they can see the answer and realise it isn't a problem and not make the same mistakes you did.

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 23, 2017, 02:06:22 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 23, 2017, 01:40:17 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 23, 2017, 01:32:56 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 22, 2017, 10:10:41 PM

<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>

What makes that impossible? 

Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth.  Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?

Mike

Lol.

Because on your Strange Heliocentric model the lunar eclipse only occurs when all three spheres are in line.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

I'm sorry but how does that have anything to do with rotation rate of the moon?  In a heliocentric model the rotation rate of the moon would have nothing to do with whether or not it comes between the sun and the earth. 

So, I'll ask again, he says knowing he won't get an answer, assuming a heliocentric model, why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?

Mike

I didn't even bother to read your post.

I have already explained this quite clearly.



It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.

You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

That's incorrect.  You made a lot of statements about the moon, its wobble, it's rotation, etc.  Making a statement doesn't explain anything.  In particular your comment in italics above, while factually correct, is misleading.  It’s meant to imply that since its orbital period isn’t exact every month that it can’t possibly keep the same face towards. 

We both know the reason is just plain gravity.  The CG of the moon isn’t in its center so gravity keeps that CG always closes to the earth.  Just like putting a weight on a suspended wheel will always rotate to the weight is down...aka tidal locking.

Additionally, I see that you left tidal locking off your discussion.  Since you say it’s impossible for the same face to always be pointed towards earth, it kinda implies that you are saying tidal locking is impossible.

So, I’ll rephrase my question, why wouldn’t tidal locking keep the same side of the moon towards the earth?

Mike

In particular your comment in italics above, while factually correct, is misleading.  It’s meant to imply that since its orbital period isn’t exact every month that it can’t possibly keep the same face towards.

I think it is more playing on the fact that some times a new moon is 30 "days" after the last one while at other times it is only 29 "days", ignoring the partial days skewing it, and ignoring the changing speed of Earth's orbit and its effect on the phases of the moon, and trying to use confusion about different ways to measure the orbital period.

It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.

Why should tidal locking be impossible? 

You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.

That's because it's rounded down from 27.3217 days.  Again, tidal locking is actually fairly common in the solar system.

Again, tidal locking is actually fairly common in the solar system.

You mean between Pluto and Charon ?


This is the first real color photograph made by the new horizons probe...look at all those details ,yes clearly tidally locked

 

Quote from: markjo on August 23, 2017, 05:33:50 AM

Again, tidal locking is actually fairly common in the solar system.

You mean between Pluto and Charon ?


This is the first real color photograph made by the new horizons probe...look at all those details ,yes clearly tidally locked

I'm not sure about Pluto but Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have tidal locked satellites.   If you care to spend the time and have a decent telescope you can verify this for yourself.

Mike