Cool Mission?

And yet another pathetic deflection from your complete inability to defend your claims about rockets functioning in a vacuum.

Orbit around what, exactly?
Keep in mind that this is the orbit you're supposed to believe in according to heliocentric "science".

Your pathetic attempt to reject reality has no bearing on it.
It has been explained to you repeatedly.
The Earth and Moon orbit their common barycenter which lies within Earth so it is typically said that the moon orbits Earth.
The entire Earth-Moon system (including both Earth and the moon) orbit the sun.
And the entire solar system orbits the galactic centre, but in a path which is more complex than a simple elliptical orbit.

If you have a point, try making it, including a rational justification; rather than just a pathetic appeal to ridicule.

In all this circus, we should be crashing into asteroids, rather than the other way around.

Why?
You sure love assert pure delusional BS with no justification at all.

If this engineer is a real engineer, he should make me a submarine to explore Antarctica.

Why?
Because you demand they do?
They are under no obligation to do what you demand.

How do rockets keep from being blasted by radiation that nukes their passengers and fries their guidance systems?

What radiation?
Care to be more specific?
All radiation can be blocked by some shielding.
I assume you mean the Van Allen belts?
That radiation doesn't cover the entire Earth (just like a belt doesn't cover your entire body).
And you can shield from it with some thin plating.

You accuse me of changing the subject.
But you won't address the question I asked.
You say that these asteroids don't all gravitate towards us because of their orbit.

Because you are. And here you are doing it again.
You had made the subject rockets ability to function in a vacuum.
Asteroids were provided as examples of things moving through the vacuum of space, something you wish to pretend is impossible.

Because you can't deal with that, you deflect and want to pretend they should be crashing into us.

So again I ask, what are they orbiting? The sun?

Yes. As already explained.
It was literally in the post you were responding to, but you ignore it, to continue down this pathetic deflection of yours.
Truly pathetic.

In other words, if the Earth moves, why do we have to have comets and meteors hit us? Can't we just crash into them? But this has never been discussed this way. They always tell that it is objects that come plowing into us.

This is just semantics.
Both Earth and the comets/meteors are moving.

You'll have to explain why during this big orbit, Earth hasn't flown into a star or black hole.

No. You need to explain why it should.

Or wouldn't it be easier to understand that the Earth is not a moving target? That these asteroids are static? That only small shards head toward Earth?

If you want to match reality, no.
If you want to believe whatever delusional BS you can to pretend you are important to the universe and the universe is as simple as a child's toy, then sure.

I'll stick with reality.

This is indeed what heliocentric theory teaches. It's just suddenly news to you, so you call it an artistic depiction.

And there you go ignoring the point yet again, you even removed it from your quote.

You suffer from a terminal inability to follow along and pay attention.

And more delusional BS.
You suffer from an inability to accept reality, which causes you to spout all sorts of delusional BS, and jump all over the place.
You can't stick to a topic, because that would require admitting you are wrong. So you jump around all over the place to pretend you are correct.

The same radiation that the moon landing should have put astronauts in Apollo in direct contact with for hours or days as they explored the moon.

And more delusional BS.
The Van Allen Belts are in the range of 1000 to 12 000 km, and 13 000 to 60 000 km.
The Moon is roughly 400 000 km away.
So the astronauts wouldn't have been exposed to that during their time on the moon. It would only be during the trip from Earth to the moon.

And again, they are belts, not spheres.
The Apollo astronauts went through a thin, weak portion of the belt.
And they were in a metal can, which shields from charged particles (the type of radiation that makes up the belt).

So no, they wouldn't have been exposed to a high dose of radiation.

they are talking about how "we didn't know about the Van Allen belt."

Who?
People like you who want to pretend it is fake?
They were discovered before the Apollo missions.

And they certainly didn't know that outer space according to NASA's own models either approaches absolute zero or is over 4000 degrees.

You have already had this delusional BS refuted.
Space has no significant thermal mass, so it has no ability to heat or cool someone by conduction.

The moon has no atmosphere. So either they should be nuked by radiation and burn like unjust sinners in some bad religious film, or be shivering horribly as they freeze to a block of ice.
[/qutoe]
Again, WHY?
Stop just asserting delusional BS and try explaining why your delusional BS should be correct.

If a car blew out flames like a rocket, not only would they be pulled over by a cop and asked to get their car repaired but you can be damned sure that there are all kinds of industrial products released in the air.  But hey, free pass if you're an astronaut. And if you dump giant tanks into the ocean, no big deal! It's not like any sea life is bothered by this!

Just what harmful combustion products are their from the combustion of hydrogen?

Just how do you expect rockets to work?
By having wheels which rotate to propel them even though they aren't pressed against anything?

Cars are efficient. Rockets are not.

If the purpose of the rocket was for you to travel a short distance along Earth's surface it would be inefficient. But that isn't its purpose.

The different purpose requires a different design requirement.
A car would be incredibly inefficient for going to space.

We all watched the same video. Prior to his slow-mo replay you could only see flames by slowmoing it yourself. You are so blatantly dishonest that you deny the results of a video that you yourself submitted.

And more pathetic projection.
You are the one who is so blatantly dishonest that you deny the results.
We did watch the same video, and see a flam quite clearly in the real time footage.
The direct view to the flame is quickly blocked by the smoke, but we still see the glow from the flame.
Even in the screenshot you provided we can see the orange glow from the flame on the right.

But you don't want to admit that rockets do work in a vacuum, so you use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend they can't.

4. Recall that if God really didn't want us to have it, he could simply have not created it.

Yes, your god is an evil POS who, in this fairy tale, set mankind up to fail so it would have an excuse to be an evil POS.

Why do atheists think it's not?

You could ask the same about anything.
If you wish to assert something is a miracle, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is.
It is not on us to demonstrate it isn't.

Against all odds, Earth is not a barren wasteland.

What odds?
And if you want to play this delusional BS, go get a pack of cards, fully shuffle them, and then look at the order.
Against, all odds, the cards are in this incredibly rare order. An order which likely has never been seen before and will never be seen again.
That doesn't make it a miracle.

You can also consider the exact opposite.
Look at all the planets which don't support life.
Look at the sun which you cannot live on.
Look at the massive void between objects like planets.
Look at the massive void between stellar systems.
Look at the massive void between galaxies.

If your god was trying to make this universe for life, it sure did a shit job.

Compare this to a creation of man, a game called Minecraft.
In this game, the entire world is inhabitable.
Even 2 alternate dimensions, which are just a portal away, are inhabitable.

Someone crunched the numbers and the probability of life on Earth (this was assuming alot of RE things that I don't assume), was astronomically low.

Yes, assuming a lot of BS, which they have no justification for.
And yes, astronomically low.
So you would expect with an astronomical number of planets, at least one should have life.

Now if you were life, were do you think you would find yourself? On a planet that supports life, or on one that doesn't.

Yet we have hundreds of millions of lifeforms on Earth.

The conditions were for a planet to support life. If it supports life, you would expect multiple organisms and multiple types. So the number of types of lifeforms on Earth is entirely irrelevant.

Unlike you guys, who I trust not at all, my grandfather didn't try to proselytize me. Nor did any scientist that I actually grew up through college.

You mean they didn't educate you.
So you have ended up as a gullible fool, who has been fooled and indoctrinated by FE conmen.
And your only response is to boldly claim that we have been indoctrinated, when all the evidence supports us, and you have nothing except baseless garbage, plenty of which has been refuted yet you keep on spouting it.

yet during the Orion one, some guy says "we must solve these challenges (Van Allen) before we send people through space," they supposedly went through there in Apollo with no problems.

Because electric circuits and components susceptibility to radiation will depend on the technology used, especially the size of the components and the number of individual "switches".
During the Apollo mission, they had large components with very few "switches". But these days they have ICs with individual switches on the order of nm.
This makes them far more susceptible.

The moon has only one visible side. No matter where you stand on Earth. From that, we have zero evidence there is any other side.

You mean because you wilfully ignore the evidence of the other side.
For starters, as already pointed out, the moon is in an elliptical orbit, and is close enough to Earth for people to see slightly different sides.
We don't just see exactly the same face, we see slightly different faces.

But more importantly, we have plenty of images of the far side of the moon.
You wanting to dismiss them as fake doesn't mean we don't have evidence of it.

How do we know that a large projector wasn't built centuries ago to project the 2D image of the moon. The moon is 2D, and we cannot see more than one side of it. Ergo, it has no other side. It is not a 3D object but a projection.

And more delusional BS.
If it was a projection, just where is it being projected from, and what is it being projected on?
We know it has to be a single projection, as otherwise there would either be locations where the moon is never visible, or locations where you can see multiple moons, and neither occur.
The moon is also responsible (in part) for the tides. A projection can't do that.
We have craft in space that have taken photos of the other side of the moon, clearly demonstrating it isn't 2D.
People and plenty of crafts have landed on the moon, further demonstrating it isn't 2D.

And as you like simplicity, which is simpler?
That there is a massive global conspiracy to fake all of that, with projectors hidden around Earth somewhere to project an image of the moon, and so on, with all that delusional BS, and all the extra delusional BS to fill in for what the moon does;
or that the moon is a physical object orbiting Earth?

I know which one I think is simpler.

This also shows how you don't care about evidence or the truth (reality) at all.

You wilfully reject mountains of evidence showing that the moon is a solid 3D object; and instead spout pure delusional BS; all so you can pretend space travel is fake.

None of us here are over 100, right? How do we know that a large projector wasn't built centuries ago to project the 2D image of the moon.

Seriously?

None of us here are over 100, right? How do we know that the Babylonians didn't have iPhones 3500 years ago? 

The moon is 2D, and we cannot see more than one side of it. Ergo, it has no other side. It is not a 3D object but a projection.

Looks pretty 3D to me...

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 10:03:08 AM

None of us here are over 100, right? How do we know that a large projector wasn't built centuries ago to project the 2D image of the moon.

Seriously?

None of us here are over 100, right? How do we know that the Babylonians didn't have iPhones 3500 years ago? 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 10:03:08 AM

The moon is 2D, and we cannot see more than one side of it. Ergo, it has no other side. It is not a 3D object but a projection.

Looks pretty 3D to me...

Looks. Appears to. These are weasel words that don't objectively mean what we think they do.

3D images are processed by the brain and the eyes. But ultimately, we don't actually have 3D vision. We have 2.5D vision.
Or can you see the front and back of an object from a frontal view?



Vision is 2.5D here. We can see front and sides. But not the back, until it passes us by. Then we can see the back and the sides.



But real 3D objects are able to turn. Your "3D" moon wobbled a bit and a dark area covers over things, but increasing the brightness reveals that it is in fact the same side of the moon, despite being darkened.

It faces the same spot even as the shadow moves across the moon. It just oscillates upside-down. At no point can the back of the moon be seen.

Quote from: Stash on January 12, 2023, 06:08:53 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 10:03:08 AM

None of us here are over 100, right? How do we know that a large projector wasn't built centuries ago to project the 2D image of the moon.

Seriously?

None of us here are over 100, right? How do we know that the Babylonians didn't have iPhones 3500 years ago? 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 10:03:08 AM

The moon is 2D, and we cannot see more than one side of it. Ergo, it has no other side. It is not a 3D object but a projection.

Looks pretty 3D to me...

Looks. Appears to. These are weasel words that don't objectively mean what we think they do.

3D images are processed by the brain and the eyes. But ultimately, we don't actually have 3D vision. We have 2.5D vision.
Or can you see the front and back of an object from a frontal view?



Vision is 2.5D here. We can see front and sides. But not the back, until it passes us by. Then we can see the back and the sides.

So I can't tell if a car is a 3d object unless I see the rear license plate?

But real 3D objects are able to turn. Your "3D" moon wobbled a bit and a dark area covers over things, but increasing the brightness reveals that it is in fact the same side of the moon, despite being darkened.

It faces the same spot even as the shadow moves across the moon. It just oscillates upside-down. At no point can the back of the moon be seen.

No shadow employed, you can see for yourself. Notice the space between the spot and the lim changes? Notice how the shape of the spot changes? That doesn't look 3d to you?

So I can't tell if a car is a 3d object unless I see the rear license plate?

Well, you could also touch it or let it crash into you.

We don't have that luxury outside of NASA or whatever.

Recall that the Buddhists themselves pointed to the moon as a sign of unreality. There is very little about its existence that adds up.



"No moon, no finger."

For reference, if you don't understand the context of what I just said, there's a Buddhist legend that goes like this.

A man named (I forget, the story's more important anyway) had an encounter with the Buddha and became enlightened and had some trippy realization about things.
After which, he pointed to the moon, teaching his followers what he had learned about the Buddha way.

One day, a young boy sees him do this, and goes around pointing to the moon, in ignorance of what it means.
The man catches wind of it, and chops off his finger. The kid is like, "Serious, why?!?"
The man tells him to hold up the stump of the finger, towards the moon. The kid does, and is enlightened.

There's no finger. And there's no moon. The representation of things is not their reality.



The actual scent name is "pipe tobacco" but it fits. The odor of something is not the object, nor is the image of something.

This is something like we learned in philosophy, but if you can't understand it, I get your betting money. Because I bet you can't get it.  In fact, I'm gonna parlay the sucker and bet not only do you not understand the above, but won't get anything I say for the rest of this month. Pay up when I win, bishes.

But real 3D objects are able to turn. Your "3D" moon wobbled a bit and a dark area covers over things, but increasing the brightness reveals that it is in fact the same side of the moon, despite being darkened.

It faces the same spot even as the shadow moves across the moon. It just oscillates upside-down. At no point can the back of the moon be seen.

And the moon is able to turn as well.
We have even sent craft to take photos of it from different angles.

But yet again you spout garbage.
That set of images showed slightly different faces. It isn't simply rotating.

There is very little about its existence that adds up.

Yet you cannot provide a single example of something about it that doesn't add up.
Instead you just continually assert delusional BS.

In fact, I'm gonna parlay the sucker and bet not only do you not understand the above, but won't get anything I say for the rest of this month. Pay up when I win, bishes.

You mean we will get what you say, explain to you why it is wrong, and you will continue to play dumb. You won't win, but you will continue with your delusional BS to pretend you do, because you can't handle reality, or because you are a pathetic troll.

Quote

So I can't tell if a car is a 3d object unless I see the rear license plate?

Well, you could also touch it or let it crash into you.

No shadow employed, you can see for yourself. Notice the space between the spot and the lim changes? Notice how the shape of the spot changes? That doesn't look 3d to you?

Quote

So I can't tell if a car is a 3d object unless I see the rear license plate?

Well, you could also touch it or let it crash into you.

We don't have that luxury outside of NASA or whatever.

Recall that the Buddhists themselves pointed to the moon as a sign of unreality. There is very little about its existence that adds up.



"No moon, no finger."

For reference, if you don't understand the context of what I just said, there's a Buddhist legend that goes like this.

Code: [Select]

A man named (I forget, the story's more important anyway) had an encounter with the Buddha and became enlightened and had some trippy realization about things.
After which, he pointed to the moon, teaching his followers what he had learned about the Buddha way.

One day, a young boy sees him do this, and goes around pointing to the moon, in ignorance of what it means.
The man catches wind of it, and chops off his finger. The kid is like, "Serious, why?!?"
The man tells him to hold up the stump of the finger, towards the moon. The kid does, and is enlightened.

There's no finger. And there's no moon. The representation of things is not their reality.



The actual scent name is "pipe tobacco" but it fits. The odor of something is not the object, nor is the image of something.

This is something like we learned in philosophy, but if you can't understand it, I get your betting money. Because I bet you can't get it.  In fact, I'm gonna parlay the sucker and bet not only do you not understand the above, but won't get anything I say for the rest of this month. Pay up when I win, bishes.

Your Logic in action.



You:  That's not real, it's a unicorn.

Uhhhh, you just called a mallard a unicorn.



Also, get ready to start paying up, cuz my bet is on!

Uhhhh, you just called a mallard a unicorn.



Also, get ready to start paying up, cuz my bet is on!

No different than your view of the moon.

Uhhhh, you just called a mallard a unicorn.
Also, get ready to start paying up, cuz my bet is on!

Why?
You just demonstrated you entirely failed to understand an argument.

And you are still yet to support any of your delusional garbage.
No evidence the moon is 2D. No evidence the moon is a projection.
No refutation of the evidence the moon is 3D.

Likewise, none of your BS about rockets is supported, nor radio waves.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 14, 2023, 07:51:58 AM

Uhhhh, you just called a mallard a unicorn.



Also, get ready to start paying up, cuz my bet is on!

No different than your view of the moon.

There is a difference between suggesting something might be possible, that we should think about it instead of accepting blindly, and suggesting something is so.

Again, people who don't know the difference between a mallard and a unicorn need help. Now I might be able to allow as how some ppl mix up pegasus and unicorn, but horses look nothing like ducks.

This is what a unicorn looks like.



Or maybe this, if you ask a scientist.



Proof that scientists are deluded, they can't even tell a horse from a marine animal.

There is a difference between suggesting something might be possible, that we should think about it instead of accepting blindly, and suggesting something is so.

Speaking of blindly accepting...

No shadow employed, you can see for yourself. Notice the space between the spot and the lim changes? Notice how the shape of the spot changes?


You're saying that this doesn't appear 3D to you?

There is a difference between suggesting something might be possible, that we should think about it instead of accepting blindly, and suggesting something is so.

And there is a difference between that, and outright rejecting reality along with all the evidence supporting reality and instead suggesting something with absolutely nothing to support it, and continuing to ignore the evidence.
And doing so to repeatedly jump topics because you defend your delusional BS.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 15, 2023, 05:34:38 AM

There is a difference between suggesting something might be possible, that we should think about it instead of accepting blindly, and suggesting something is so.

Speaking of blindly accepting...

No shadow employed, you can see for yourself. Notice the space between the spot and the lim changes? Notice how the shape of the spot changes?


You're saying that this doesn't appear 3D to you?

I'm not necessarily talking about a true hologram.

So the shadow isn't doctored in some way.

But no, it doesn't look 3D to me, because from my own video game experience, I know that fake 3D us a thing. The inability to ever see both sides of an object makes it at best a disc.

In fact, in video game parlance, 3D often has nothing to do with dimension, and everything to do with hand-rendered and CGI and model-based.

But no, it doesn't look 3D to me, because from my own video game experience, I know that fake 3D us a thing. The inability to ever see both sides of an object makes it at best a disc.

See, this is an example of your arrogance, where you arrogant assert delusional BS with no justification at all.
You only seeing mostly the same face of an object in no way indicates it is 2D or a disc.

Instead of accepting the evidence, you just call it fake because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.

Quote from: Stash on January 15, 2023, 05:56:48 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 15, 2023, 05:34:38 AM

There is a difference between suggesting something might be possible, that we should think about it instead of accepting blindly, and suggesting something is so.

Speaking of blindly accepting...

No shadow employed, you can see for yourself. Notice the space between the spot and the lim changes? Notice how the shape of the spot changes?


You're saying that this doesn't appear 3D to you?

But no, it doesn't look 3D to me, because from my own video game experience, I know that fake 3D us a thing.

You're overturning 1000's of years of observations/measurements/ and more contemporary imagery because something can be "faked" in a video game? Seriously?

So there you have it. As I explained before, all arguments for flat earth distill down to ANY and ALL evidence to the contrary is "fake". Simple as that.

- No need to have to explain flat moon phases
- No need to have to explain flat moon lighting
- No need to have to explain flat moon appears to people in different parts of the world
- No need to have to explain flat moon earth tides
- No need to have to explain flat moon eclipses
- No need to have to explain flat moon sets & rises

Because anything that shows, demonstrates otherwise is just fakery as part of a conspiracy.

I guess that puts an end to all discussion right there and then.

Actually, I don't need to explain anything at all to you.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

But I am not claiming that the moon is a projection. Only that the moon can be a projection, based on the fact that we cannot ever see lady moon's backside, so to speak. If you are only casting shadow on an assumption, you can say anything you want.

However, I will address these questions anyway.

We are told, under RE theory, that the sun is several times larger than the moon, that during such events as an eclipse, this sorta thing happens.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense. The angles are wrong, as you'd have to look directly up in the sky, but in the actual day of an eclipse, it's like sun--moon\Earth with the average person able to view the thing from a comfy 45 to 60 degree angle, not lying on their back (90 degrees). Moreover this is nearly always where the sun and moon are, except around high noon. The angles are always where you can easily see both celestial bodies from any altitude, and having seen them out together in the same sky, during a full moon, the two appear to be the same size, they appear to be a perfect 180 degrees from each other (a straight line). What can we determine from this?
1. The sun is also a flat disc, shining light like a lantern instead of a 3D light as we like to tell ourselves.
2. The sun has a fixed path while the moon's is somewhat fixed but not necessarily always at the same angles from the sun over the course of the month.
3. During a solar eclipse, the model is wrong. The solar eclipse is dangerous to look at because because the sun is actually in front and the moon is behind. The moon casts shadow on the sun, projecting its image, but you are look straight at the sun. A lunar eclipse is safe to look at as the sun's rays are completely obstructed by the moon. An eclipse is a 0 degree sun and moon. But it happens less than you'd think because of the different rates of motion between the two, and they have to cross over a specific point in the sky to be seen (an eclipse in Nevada cannot be seen in Virginia as such)
4. Normal phases have to do with the sun moving from 90 degrees from the sun (where none of it would it would be lit, so a new moon) to a 180 or 0 position.
5. The sun and moon are a comfortable 45 to 60 because they are within Earth's atmosphere, rather than the absurd idea that the position is based on rotation, which coupled with tilt, wobbles, rotation, etc, would result in extremely unpredictable rise and set positions.

Okay, that's the first two, right? And the fifth.

The third... How does the moon appear to different parts of the world?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/@4788822

So I'll direct you to the nearest major town instead of my house. Sun rises and sets at 7:20am to 5pm. That's roughly a 10 hour day of sun. The moon is closer to 12 hours. 1:45am to 12:21pm. The moon is in the sky for a huge number of hours on our hemisphere then suddenly zap on the other. On a round Earth model, visible perspective is what 1/4 of the Earth? Probably not even that. So you're talking less than a quarter of the day being able to see the moon and that simply doesn't play out right.
So in your round Earth, you're actually talking about the surface being coin shaped elliptical rather than anywhere near a sphere.

That's not what I believe. But I can only conclude that the moon effectively goes out of range every day and within range of places  like New Zealand. But we can see the moon for a long time each day (rather than only a quarter) because there is no hill of the curvature.

How many tides a day do we have?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html
Two high tides, two low tides. Either there are two moons, or the time frames of such tides prove that the moon literally has nothing to do with the tides, and this is a carryover from superstition. I suppose you also want to believe that the moon turns people into lunatics?
https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Date/tides/latest
Next.

Same as sun rises and sets. The sun has a mostly fixed rotation around the Earth, and as much smaller than scientists claim it is (near sun within Earth's atmosphere). Seasons are defined by the sun moving from Tropic of Cancer to Capricorn and back again, with the equator getting regular sun, and the sun never being out of reach in the North Pole for part of the year. The sun sets when it drifts out of range of our vision but continues to cast light on the moon. The moon likewise goes in and out of vision, but does so in a phase pattern. When objects set, they simply move to the terminus line of the parabola.

Actually, I don't need to explain anything at all to you.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

But I am not claiming that the moon is a projection. Only that the moon can be a projection, based on the fact that we cannot ever see lady moon's backside, so to speak. If you are only casting shadow on an assumption, you can say anything you want.

However, I will address these questions anyway.

We are told, under RE theory, that the sun is several times larger than the moon, that during such events as an eclipse, this sorta thing happens.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense. The angles are wrong, as you'd have to look directly up in the sky, but in the actual day of an eclipse, it's like sun--moon\Earth with the average person able to view the thing from a comfy 45 to 60 degree angle, not lying on their back (90 degrees). Moreover this is nearly always where the sun and moon are, except around high noon. The angles are always where you can easily see both celestial bodies from any altitude, and having seen them out together in the same sky, during a full moon, the two appear to be the same size, they appear to be a perfect 180 degrees from each other (a straight line). What can we determine from this?
1. The sun is also a flat disc, shining light like a lantern instead of a 3D light as we like to tell ourselves.
2. The sun has a fixed path while the moon's is somewhat fixed but not necessarily always at the same angles from the sun over the course of the month.
3. During a solar eclipse, the model is wrong. The solar eclipse is dangerous to look at because because the sun is actually in front and the moon is behind. The moon casts shadow on the sun, projecting its image, but you are look straight at the sun. A lunar eclipse is safe to look at as the sun's rays are completely obstructed by the moon. An eclipse is a 0 degree sun and moon. But it happens less than you'd think because of the different rates of motion between the two, and they have to cross over a specific point in the sky to be seen (an eclipse in Nevada cannot be seen in Virginia as such)
4. Normal phases have to do with the sun moving from 90 degrees from the sun (where none of it would it would be lit, so a new moon) to a 180 or 0 position.
5. The sun and moon are a comfortable 45 to 60 because they are within Earth's atmosphere, rather than the absurd idea that the position is based on rotation, which coupled with tilt, wobbles, rotation, etc, would result in extremely unpredictable rise and set positions.

Okay, that's the first two, right? And the fifth.

The third... How does the moon appear to different parts of the world?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/@4788822

So I'll direct you to the nearest major town instead of my house. Sun rises and sets at 7:20am to 5pm. That's roughly a 10 hour day of sun. The moon is closer to 12 hours. 1:45am to 12:21pm. The moon is in the sky for a huge number of hours on our hemisphere then suddenly zap on the other. On a round Earth model, visible perspective is what 1/4 of the Earth? Probably not even that. So you're talking less than a quarter of the day being able to see the moon and that simply doesn't play out right.
So in your round Earth, you're actually talking about the surface being coin shaped elliptical rather than anywhere near a sphere.

That's not what I believe. But I can only conclude that the moon effectively goes out of range every day and within range of places  like New Zealand. But we can see the moon for a long time each day (rather than only a quarter) because there is no hill of the curvature.

How many tides a day do we have?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html
Two high tides, two low tides. Either there are two moons, or the time frames of such tides prove that the moon literally has nothing to do with the tides, and this is a carryover from superstition. I suppose you also want to believe that the moon turns people into lunatics?
https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Date/tides/latest
Next.

Same as sun rises and sets. The sun has a mostly fixed rotation around the Earth, and as much smaller than scientists claim it is (near sun within Earth's atmosphere). Seasons are defined by the sun moving from Tropic of Cancer to Capricorn and back again, with the equator getting regular sun, and the sun never being out of reach in the North Pole for part of the year. The sun sets when it drifts out of range of our vision but continues to cast light on the moon. The moon likewise goes in and out of vision, but does so in a phase pattern. When objects set, they simply move to the terminus line of the parabola.

Saying that it can be a projection is a claim.  The burden of proof is on you to support how it can be a projection. 

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

But I am not claiming that the moon is a projection. Only that the moon can be a projection, based on the fact that we cannot ever see lady moon's backside, so to speak.

If it was a projection, what has been projecting it from the dawn of human kind?

Then if it’s not a projection, what is it?

Sphere earth explains it very nicely with predictability.  From the lunar cycle to tides. 

they simply move to the terminus line of the parabola.

Theirs is no f’n parabola.  And the delusional parabola has to also act like a curtain to physically block the light of the single light source we call the sun that has no means to be blocked by “orbiting” above a  flat earth.  And has to block the sunlight from the moon for a new moon. 

Items better and more eloquently demonstrably proven by spherical earth.

So in your model?

Sunsets explain by parabola?

No explanation what physically blocks sun light for sunsets, nights, new moon.

No explanation that explains why tides follow the cycles of the sun and moon.

No explanation for what blocks the sun’s light and heat during a solar eclipse.

No explanation how meteorites travel to the moon and earth, but rockets can’t get to the moon.

Why by radar surveys and exploration the moon is proven to be a solid 3D object. 

Saying that it can be a projection is a claim.  The burden of proof is on you to support how it can be a projection.

No.

Saying that it is a projection is a claim. Saying that it can be a projection is a supposition, a statement that we don't have all the facts and something is possible, I guess. 

There can be Muslims living in Easter Island. Do I need to show immigration records?  No, because this is something that is not impossible. Planes and boats can get there, so there is nothing technically stopping it.  Nor do they have any reason to banish Muslims from their island. But you will need to prove otherwise, if you tell me that you know that there are have not ever been any Muslims. Show me the records where it is shown that Easter Island has never had any Muslim visitors.

Nevertheless, I defended the supposition. Now the burden of proof is on you.

Prove that the moon cannot be a projection.

You can't, can you?

1. The sun is also a flat disc, shining light like a lantern instead of a 3D light as we like to tell ourselves.
2. The sun has a fixed path while the moon's is somewhat fixed but not necessarily always at the same angles from the sun over the course of the month.
3. During a solar eclipse, the model is wrong. The solar eclipse is dangerous to look at because because the sun is actually in front and the moon is behind. The moon casts shadow on the sun, projecting its image, but you are look straight at the sun. A lunar eclipse is safe to look at as the sun's rays are completely obstructed by the moon. An eclipse is a 0 degree sun and moon. But it happens less than you'd think because of the different rates of motion between the two, and they have to cross over a specific point in the sky to be seen (an eclipse in Nevada cannot be seen in Virginia as such)
4. Normal phases have to do with the sun moving from 90 degrees from the sun (where none of it would it would be lit, so a new moon) to a 180 or 0 position.
5. The sun and moon are a comfortable 45 to 60 because they are within Earth's atmosphere, rather than the absurd idea that the position is based on rotation, which coupled with tilt, wobbles, rotation, etc, would result in extremely unpredictable rise and set positions.

So these are all just suppositions? Not claims?

supposition def: "an uncertain belief".

Prove that the moon cannot be a projection.

You can't, can you?

First.  Quote who made the claim it cannot be a projection…..

The claim is it’s not a projection because of its physical properties of having mass, gravity, blocking light, blocking energy from the sun, able to register in a Radar survey.

Even the record of new meteorite impacts shows the moon is a physical object. 

Pow! A Meteorite Slammed into the Moon at 38,000 MPH During Lunar Eclipse
By Elizabeth Howell published May 01, 2019
If you blinked, you missed it.

https://www.space.com/meteorite-hits-moon-during-2019-lunar-eclipse.html

Record-Breaking Meteorite Crash on Moon Sparks Brightest Lunar Explosion Ever

https://www.space.com/24789-moon-meteorite-impact-brightest-lunar-explosion.html

Impact! New Moon Craters Are Appearing Faster Than Thought


https://www.space.com/34372-new-moon-craters-appearing-faster-than-thought.html

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 16, 2023, 06:09:25 AM

1. The sun is also a flat disc, shining light like a lantern instead of a 3D light as we like to tell ourselves.
2. The sun has a fixed path while the moon's is somewhat fixed but not necessarily always at the same angles from the sun over the course of the month.
3. During a solar eclipse, the model is wrong. The solar eclipse is dangerous to look at because because the sun is actually in front and the moon is behind. The moon casts shadow on the sun, projecting its image, but you are look straight at the sun. A lunar eclipse is safe to look at as the sun's rays are completely obstructed by the moon. An eclipse is a 0 degree sun and moon. But it happens less than you'd think because of the different rates of motion between the two, and they have to cross over a specific point in the sky to be seen (an eclipse in Nevada cannot be seen in Virginia as such)
4. Normal phases have to do with the sun moving from 90 degrees from the sun (where none of it would it would be lit, so a new moon) to a 180 or 0 position.
5. The sun and moon are a comfortable 45 to 60 because they are within Earth's atmosphere, rather than the absurd idea that the position is based on rotation, which coupled with tilt, wobbles, rotation, etc, would result in extremely unpredictable rise and set positions.

So these are all just suppositions? Not claims?

supposition def: "an uncertain belief".

These are observations. We can say the supposition is probably true because of what we can see.

But it's only probably true, as any day now, the moon could spin out of orbit, and we would actually see the other side of the moon, as it spins towards us.

If the moon hit us, then yes, I would absolutely have to admit that indeed the moon is a three-dimensional object.

But you know, until something like that happens, I am not required to believe anything about the moon, including that it is real.

But you know, until something like that happens, I am not required to believe anything about the moon, including that it is real.

I don’t care what you believe.  It’s about what is demonstrably real, or provides the most accurate and repeatable results.

How would thinking the moon is a projection help me in photographing the moon vs treating it like an 3D object that reflects sunlight?

 How would treating the moon as a projection produce a better method of capturing a solar eclipse on film than treating the moon as a solid 3D object? 

How would treating the moon as a projection produce any of the current meaningful data from radar  surveys of the moon? 

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 16, 2023, 06:54:39 AM

Saying that it can be a projection is a claim.  The burden of proof is on you to support how it can be a projection.

No.

Saying that it is a projection is a claim. Saying that it can be a projection is a supposition, a statement that we don't have all the facts and something is possible, I guess. 

There can be Muslims living in Easter Island. Do I need to show immigration records?  No, because this is something that is not impossible. Planes and boats can get there, so there is nothing technically stopping it.  Nor do they have any reason to banish Muslims from their island. But you will need to prove otherwise, if you tell me that you know that there are have not ever been any Muslims. Show me the records where it is shown that Easter Island has never had any Muslim visitors.

Nevertheless, I defended the supposition. Now the burden of proof is on you.

Prove that the moon cannot be a projection.

You can't, can you?

Wrong.

There is a difference between an open ended possibility (There could be other reasons for why we see the moon as we do) and a possibility of a something specific (Parabolas can be why we see the moon as we do) .

Providing a specific possibility is making a claim. 

As for your example, you made a claim that it is possible for Muslims to live on Easter Island.  Then provided evidence to support that claim.

Please try again.  Your retart is showing.

Actually, I don't need to explain anything at all to you.
The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

And the burden has been met.
But you dismiss all the evidence as fake.
You have no justification for why it should be fake other than you don't like it.

based on the fact that we cannot ever see lady moon's backside, so to speak.

You mean we can't see it from Earth, which is expected for a tidally locked moon.
But we can and have seen photos of the far side of the moon.
Photos you dismiss as fake.

If you are only casting shadow on an assumption, you can say anything you want.

You aren't casing shadow on an assumption.
You are rejecting a conclusion based upon plenty of evidence, by dismissing the evidence as fake, and refusing to obtain your own.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense. The angles are wrong, as you'd have to look directly up in the sky

And there you go asserting delusional BS yet again.
Just why should you have to look directly up in the sky?
You don't always have to do that to see the moon or to see the sun, so why should you during an eclipse?
The angles shown in the diagram are representative.

they appear to be a perfect 180 degrees from each other (a straight line).

No, they don't.
They are only approximately 180 degrees apart during a full moon.

What can we determine from this?
1. The sun is also a flat disc, shining light like a lantern instead of a 3D light as we like to tell ourselves.
2. The sun has a fixed path while the moon's is somewhat fixed but not necessarily always at the same angles from the sun over the course of the month.
3. During a solar eclipse, the model is wrong. The solar eclipse is dangerous to look at because because the sun is actually in front and the moon is behind. The moon casts shadow on the sun, projecting its image, but you are look straight at the sun. A lunar eclipse is safe to look at as the sun's rays are completely obstructed by the moon. An eclipse is a 0 degree sun and moon. But it happens less than you'd think because of the different rates of motion between the two, and they have to cross over a specific point in the sky to be seen (an eclipse in Nevada cannot be seen in Virginia as such)
4. Normal phases have to do with the sun moving from 90 degrees from the sun (where none of it would it would be lit, so a new moon) to a 180 or 0 position.
5. The sun and moon are a comfortable 45 to 60 because they are within Earth's atmosphere, rather than the absurd idea that the position is based on rotation, which coupled with tilt, wobbles, rotation, etc, would result in extremely unpredictable rise and set positions.

Pure BS.

You aren't determining any of that from your observations.
You are just baselessly asserting it.
1 - The observations performed are unable to tell if the sun is flat or round.
2 - more nonsense. Your observations can't even tell what is moving.
In the fantasy flat Earth model, neither path is fixed.
And yes, the angle between the sun and moon vary over the month.

3 - Absolute garbage.
If the sun is a light, and the moon is behind it, you would still see the sun.
The fact that the light is blocked demonstrates that the moon is in front of the sun blocking the light.
For a lunar eclipse, the sun and moon are roughly 180 degrees apart, and Earth is blocking the light from reaching the moon.

4 - Close, but your numbers are off.
When the separation between them in the sky is 0 degrees, it is a new moon.
A quarter moon is roughly 90 degrees, and a full moon is roughly 180 degrees.

5 - The angle of elevation of the sun and moon will vary depending on latitude.
But yet again you spout more delusional BS.
Why would the rotation of Earth, etc cause unpredictable rise and set positions?

So none of your delusional BS can be determined from the observations.1

On a round Earth model, visible perspective is what 1/4 of the Earth? Probably not even that. So you're talking less than a quarter of the day being able to see the moon and that simply doesn't play out right.

And once more just spouting delusional BS.
You have already spouted this garbage and had it refuted before.
Why repeat the same lies?

On a RE, standing on the surface, you can see ~half the sky (with the other half being blocked from view by Earth).
Due to the distance to the moon, you can see it for roughly 12 hours.
From when it is above a point roughly 90 degrees away in one direction to when it is above a point roughly 90 degrees away in the other direction.

That's not what I believe.

And it isn't the RE model either.
It is your pathetic strawman of it.
A strawman which has already been exposed.
But because of how little you care about the truth, you happy to repeat the same dishonest BS.
And still without any rational justification.

How many tides a day do we have?
Two high tides, two low tides. Either there are two moons

Or you have no understanding of how tidal forces work.
I certainly know which option I would pick.

The Earth is attracted to the moon due to gravity.
This causes an acceleration.
You can treat Earth as a whole as a point at the centre, with some specific force acting causing an acceleration.
Regions of Earth closer to the moon (such as directly below) will experience a greater force pulling it towards the moon more.
Regions of Earth further away from the moon (such as directly opposite) will experience a lesser force pulling it towards the moon less.

This can be viewed from the frame of Earth, where the tidal force is pulling the water towards the moon on the side closest to the moon, and it is pulling it away on the side opposite the moon.

So my option was correct. Either you have no understanding of how tidal forces work, or you are intentionally lying about it.

Same as sun rises and sets.

Which would not be expected at all in the FE model with the sun always above Earth.
But is expected in the RE model.

parabola.

You have had your parabola BS refuted countless times. No need to bring it in here.

Now how about you get back to the topic at hand?

Nevertheless, I defended the supposition. Now the burden of proof is on you.

No, you didn't. You just asserted it.
We have met our burden.
All you can do to respond is dismiss it as fake.
You have also failed to explain this projection, by explaining just what magical device is projecting it.

These are observations. We can say the supposition is probably true because of what we can see.

Pure BS.
They are not observations. They are baseless claims.
And they don't help support your BS that the moon is a projection at all.

we would actually see the other side of the moon

Again, we already have photos of it.

If the moon hit us, then yes, I would absolutely have to admit that indeed the moon is a three-dimensional object.

No you wouldn't.
Considering how much you wilfully reject reality, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you continued to say it was fake, and say that something else hit us, or that it was just a bunch of TNT.