crescent moon question

Nope, you're wrong yet again. Those are all from amateur astrophotographers. No NASA, et al involved, just people like you or me with telescopes and cameras that are readily available to us. If you really wanted to put your money where your mouth is, you'd actually go out of your way to look through a basic Celestron. But you won't. You'd prefer to armchair your way about the world.

I've actually looked through a Celestron. Both at the stars and at rhe Earth. I first figured out that all the images were mirrored, which screwed up by ability to find anything, and my brain also wanted to flip vertically and the whole thing annoyed me. There was a clear moon out that night, and I realized I could see it better with my own eyes than spending precious minutes trying to adjust the direction, focus, and angle. Then I discovered looking at ground level that it's actually a hyped pair of binoculars that won't even let you look with both eyes. You cannot see beyond the horizon any better with telescope than normal. After awhile of barely using it, we gave it to the thrift store. This amateurs are either dupes or not amateurs.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 23, 2023, 05:38:13 AM

Meanwhile, with my naked eye, the moon appears to be a flat projection.

Therein lies your problem...Too lazy to look at anything without just your naked eye. I suppose you're against the use of microscopes and glasses too.

Okay, you're right. I was wearing glasses. And no, I'm not against microscopes. I've actually seen some cool things with those. It needs two lenses though so you can look at things normaly.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 23, 2023, 05:38:13 AM

The moon is a flat projection. It just has shadows around the edges. But since you're so fixated on these NASA photos, here's a video called "NASA photos prove moon is a projection."

Again, not sure why you're all hung up on NASA when NASA has nothing to do with this.

It's because you think they have nothing to do with this. Just as "amateur" discoveries of dinosaures have nothing to do with whatever the main paleontology institute is. Take it from a real amateur . I know what being an amateur looks like. You don't get sudden media attention, your ideas get ignored until something makes you famous.


Accurate numbers are for chumps? Pretty much says it all about the veracity of any of your claims. And referencing a zelda video further says it all about the veracity of any of your claims. Child-like, at best.

I see. So using trigonometry to calculate vertical height from total distance is for kiddos.

In regard to your response to Where is this 'projector(s)' located?

I have no idea what all that was all about. East? Tape measures? Guinness book? How far we can see? Since at ground level, we can generally only see about 3 miles to the horizon, your saying that the Moon must be closer than that, otherwise we couldn't see it due to the limitations of our sight?

You don't listen. You don't pay attention.

If you don't know, then you don't know and, apparently, don't care. Therefore you can't say it's farther than you think and closer than I think. You have no idea either way. So you just decide to make up things?

The official reported distance of things is 3 mies. But actually this distance depends on elevation, weather conditions, the elevation of other objects, and shadows. It turns out from high mountain like Everest, you can see hundreds of miles away. You can see from Ireland across to Scotland or Russia to Alaska. This more than 3 miles. Your model is based on what other people have told you. I personally have seen objects farther than 3 miles. With my naked eye. Not with any telescope.

So you inductive reasoning is based upon playground structures. Pretty much says it all.

Which is more shameful, that you learned about science by observing everything inclyding the playground? Or that you weren't paying attention to the actual world, and learned whatever peope told you?

And lastly, you still haven't even remotely answered the question as to how the phases of the moon works. How do the phases of the moon work?

Angles. As the sun hits the moon, it shows up. If the moon is off to the side somewhere, no light hits it.

I already told you this. You don't listen.

bulma: The definition of 'amateur' is 'unpaid' or 'not professional', not 'completely incompetent'

You seem to be confusing those two. There are insanely competent amateur astronomers (some have even found a moon orbiting an asteroid), just because you can not figure out how a simple telescope works does not mean noone can.

Nope, you're wrong yet again. Those are all from amateur astrophotographers. No NASA, et al involved, just people like you or me with telescopes and cameras that are readily available to us. If you really wanted to put your money where your mouth is, you'd actually go out of your way to look through a basic Celestron. But you won't. You'd prefer to armchair your way about the world.

I've actually looked through a Celestron. Both at the stars and at rhe Earth. I first figured out that all the images were mirrored, which screwed up by ability to find anything, and my brain also wanted to flip vertically and the whole thing annoyed me. There was a clear moon out that night, and I realized I could see it better with my own eyes than spending precious minutes trying to adjust the direction, focus, and angle. Then I discovered looking at ground level that it's actually a hyped pair of binoculars that won't even let you look with both eyes.

Wait, so you couldn't figure out how to use a telescope because they weren't binoculars? And that somehow means that all telescopes are useless? If you don't know how to drive stick, all manual transmissions are useless?

Pro Tip: When using a telescope or microscope, keep both eyes open.

Because your brain wanted something that somehow applies to everyone else on earth? Your arrogance is unending.

You don't realize that some telescopes are more powerful than binoculars?

You cannot see beyond the horizon any better with telescope than normal. After awhile of barely using it, we gave it to the thrift store. This amateurs are either dupes or not amateurs.

Not being able to work a basic telescope and subsequently throwing it in the trash is infinitely below amateurish, it's pure ineptitude. Just because you can't figure out the most basic of things doesn't mean other people can't.

And yes, you can't see beyond the horizon. Thanks for confirming a globe earth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 23, 2023, 05:38:13 AM

Meanwhile, with my naked eye, the moon appears to be a flat projection.

Therein lies your problem...Too lazy to look at anything without just your naked eye. I suppose you're against the use of microscopes and glasses too.

Okay, you're right. I was wearing glasses. And no, I'm not against microscopes. I've actually seen some cool things with those. It needs two lenses though so you can look at things normaly.

Yes, and millions of people use monocular microscopes just fine and have been discovering amazing things with them for over 400 years. Yet you can't? Sounds like a "you" problem and not the fault of anything else, wouldn't you agree?

Louis Pasteur's microscope...

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 23, 2023, 05:38:13 AM

The moon is a flat projection. It just has shadows around the edges. But since you're so fixated on these NASA photos, here's a video called "NASA photos prove moon is a projection."

Again, not sure why you're all hung up on NASA when NASA has nothing to do with this.

It's because you think they have nothing to do with this. Just as "amateur" discoveries of dinosaures have nothing to do with whatever the main paleontology institute is. Take it from a real amateur . I know what being an amateur looks like. You don't get sudden media attention, your ideas get ignored until something makes you famous.

There are "main" paleontology institutes all over the world. Just like their are main space agencies and companies all over the world. You think the China National Space Administration (CNSA) answers to NASA? Think again.

You're still evading the questions.

- What is doing the 'projecting'?
- Where is this image of the moon located that is being projected?
- How do the moon phases work?

Accurate numbers are for chumps? Pretty much says it all about the veracity of any of your claims. And referencing a zelda video further says it all about the veracity of any of your claims. Child-like, at best.

I see. So using trigonometry to calculate vertical height from total distance is for kiddos.

So you do believe in number/calculation accuracy? Or you don't? Which is it?

In regard to your response to Where is this 'projector(s)' located?

I have no idea what all that was all about. East? Tape measures? Guinness book? How far we can see? Since at ground level, we can generally only see about 3 miles to the horizon, your saying that the Moon must be closer than that, otherwise we couldn't see it due to the limitations of our sight?

You don't listen. You don't pay attention.

There's nothing to pay attention to. You still haven't addressed the basic questions outlined above (and below)...And be specific...Not vague..

- What is doing the 'projecting'?
- Where is this image of the moon located that is being projected?
- How do the moon phases work?

If you don't know, then you don't know and, apparently, don't care. Therefore you can't say it's farther than you think and closer than I think. You have no idea either way. So you just decide to make up things?

The official reported distance of things is 3 mies. But actually this distance depends on elevation, weather conditions, the elevation of other objects, and shadows. It turns out from high mountain like Everest, you can see hundreds of miles away. You can see from Ireland across to Scotland or Russia to Alaska. This more than 3 miles. Your model is based on what other people have told you. I personally have seen objects farther than 3 miles. With my naked eye. Not with any telescope.

I personally have seen objects farther than 3 miles as many others have as well. Strange how the bottoms of objects get chopped off at a distance...

So you inductive reasoning is based upon playground structures. Pretty much says it all.

Which is more shameful, that you learned about science by observing everything inclyding the playground? Or that you weren't paying attention to the actual world, and learned whatever peope told you?

You're so black and white. One can observe the world and learn from others. They are not mutually exclusive. You happen to choose learning solely from your playground experience and applying that to anything and everything. And for some reason, you're POV seems to be only thing that exists in the world. Bizarre and arrogant.

And lastly, you still haven't even remotely answered the question as to how the phases of the moon works. How do the phases of the moon work?

Angles. As the sun hits the moon, it shows up. If the moon is off to the side somewhere, no light hits it.

I already told you this. You don't listen.

What does "off to the side" mean? What side? Where? How does the moon know to go off to the "side" somewhere and move about to create phases? You're not making any sense and being suspiciously vague.

- What is doing the 'projecting'?
- Where is this image of the moon located that is being projected?
- Where is the Moon located on a given day?
- How do the moon phases work?

Hallo,

I´m from Frankfurt / Germany.
Since end of 2022 I´m interested in the flat earth model.
I have got a question who the crescent moon works in these model.
Which object is before the moon to see the crescent moon?
Are these explanations oder videos to explain this?

Thank for the help.

Best regards

Marcus

Grüß gott, Herr Marcus.
Leider habe ich nicht viele Videos gesehen, die dies erklären (viele Videos auf Youtube werden markiert oder entfernt, wenn sie Flat Earth unterstützen oder darüber sprechen) Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass es ein Video darauf gibt, aber Sie können fragen.

Auf wiedersehen!
Lexi.

(Auf deutsch für Herr Marcus)

I've actually looked through a Celestron. Both at the stars and at rhe Earth.

I notice that you ignore the moon. The key point of discussion.

You cannot see beyond the horizon any better with telescope than normal.

And this is expected.
The horizon is caused by Earth's curvature.
A telescope wont magically allow you to see through Earth.

If your BS was true, and your sight was limited by FE magic, then a telescope should allow you to see further.
The fact it doesn't demonstrates Earth isn't flat.

It's because you think they have nothing to do with this.

Literally anyone can go outside, with a decent telescope and take these kind of images.
This includes you.
That is why NASA has nothing to do with this.

The official reported distance of things is 3 mies. But actually this distance depends on elevation, weather conditions, the elevation of other objects, and shadows.

That is not the official reported distance.
That is the distance to the horizon when near sea level.
Just like you would expect for a globe, the ability to see a distant object near Earth's surface depends upon its elevation, and yours.
A round Earth doesn't magically make things vanish after 3 miles.

Or that you weren't paying attention to the actual world, and learned whatever peope told you?

You mean people like you, who haven't paid attention to the actual world, or rational thought, and accepted what FE con men have told you?

Angles. As the sun hits the moon, it shows up. If the moon is off to the side somewhere, no light hits it.

This is not answering the question.
This is a pathetic excuse to try and pretend you have an explanation, when your attempts so far have been crap.

Like I said before, try drawing a model.
Actually explain how the phases form.
Do you have a round moon in this fantasy of yours to create the cresent shape?
If not, what is causing that cresent?

We know it wouldn't be a spotlight on a flat moon because that would produce the same shape.

bulma: The definition of 'amateur' is 'unpaid' or 'not professional', not 'completely incompetent'

You seem to be confusing those two. There are insanely competent amateur astronomers (some have even found a moon orbiting an asteroid), just because you can not figure out how a simple telescope works does not mean noone can.

Your definition of "amateur" appears to be "part-time unpaid lackey who is nonetheless used by the system."

As in, "Hey lackey! Help me dig here! Wow, you found a dinosaur (that I totally didn't plant here). I guess I'll promote you from getting my coffee to (maybe sometime in the next 20 years) actually having a paid salary."

My definition of amateur is an actual freelancer. As in, you are doing something because you love the thing, you are not under contract. In fact, this is the real word origin of the term (from French amateur "one who loves, lover"). In actual fact, amateurs can be skilled at something. They don't have to rookies. It's a term that has taken on demeaning connotations. But no, amateur doesn't mean unpaid. It means you are not doing it for the money. This is a subtle but significant difference.
I worked hours on end game programming. Never made a cent. Never want to make a cent, as I typically had a part-time job and this was a hobby. I happen to know some of these games I made were better than the stuff that "professional" people were trying to make money on. I should know as I played them (the demos, at least, having discovered that most of them weren't worth paying money). The actual difference was they paid a bunch of people to help them, and then expected to turn around and make a profit. Some of these games were awful in fact, or straight up boring. Oh sure, they had original graphics. I had shamelessly stolen graphics (I'm a programmer, not an artist). Paying people to do stuff for you doesn't make you a better programmer.

Professional isn't good, amateur isn't bad. But the "amateurs" you speak of are not amateurs. They are rookies. They are part of the system, they shill just as strongly.

Wait, so you couldn't figure out how to use a telescope because they weren't binoculars? And that somehow means that all telescopes are useless? If you don't know how to drive stick, all manual transmissions are useless?

I have to look through glasses. I have to either squint or take off said glasses to look through a telescope, because some  asshole couldn't be bothered to invent a lens that doesn't mirror, and isn't big enough that you can look with both eyes instead of one. What, was the inventor stuck with an eyepatch? If it's a moving object like a comet or meteor, by the time I've lined everything up, the damned object probably moved.

I do not drive stick. And yes, manual transmission is on its way out. They actually create traffic accidents as any time the gear stalls, it's a rear-end collision.

You don't realize that some telescopes are more powerful than binoculars?

Actually, they are not. Neither the telescope nor the binocular actually sees at a greater distance (try looking towards the horizon). They see at a greater magnification. I think maybe surveyor's tools can see at a greater distance, but I wouldn't bank on it.

It didn't go into the trash because I didn't know how to work it. It went into the trash because during a summer we had it, we used it about eight times. I was sorta good at it by the end. But then, one night Venus was out. Despite being a bright body in the heavens, despite being able to see it with my naked eye, I realized most of the things that I wanted to see, I could see with (a) my naked eye or (b) zoom camera, which btw had a proper viewer.

Pretty soon, we used it less and less, until it wasn't economical. And we didn't "throw it in the trash." Thrift store. Someone else uses it. Maybe you throw things in the trash (city ppl waste so damned much food because of expiry dates), but we give to other people who need.

You think the China National Space Administration (CNSA) answers to NASA? Think again.

You actually think they are different organizations?

The entire space race was a hoax!

It was to get us to believe that we won against Russia. Actually, Russian commies infiltrated this country while we claimed good press for Apollo missions. They entered politics and the media, while we continued getting fake news about satellites and especially space missions. Now we are in another "space race" against China. US will lose this one. Because press wants Chinese socialism to look good. Sure, tell Chinese who get hauled away in wagons for not obeying health mandates how "good" social credit system is.

NASA/CNSA or whatever else, all the same organization. Every astronaut, every astrophysicist, everyone who works for the secret has to sign something like this (from NASA's own site).

Disclosure of Confidential Information - 18 U.S.C. 1905

Sec. 1905. Disclosure of confidential information generally

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, any person acting on behalf of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, or agent of the Department of Justice as defined in the Antitrust Civil Process Act (15 U.S.C. 1311- 1314), or being an employee of a private sector organization who is or was assigned to an agency under chapter 37 of title 5, publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties or by reason of any examination or investigation made by, or return, report or record made to or filed with, such department or agency or officer or employee thereof, which information concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and shall be removed from office or employment.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 791; Sept. 12, 1980, Pub. L. 96-349, Sec. 7(b), 94 Stat. 1158; Oct. 28, 1992, Pub. L. 102-550, title XIII, Sec. 1353, 106 Stat. 3970.)

Notice they don't even mention NASA. It's the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Because all of these stooges live in the same system.

I have to look through glasses. I have to either squint or take off said glasses to look through a telescope, because some  asshole couldn't be bothered to invent a lens that doesn't mirror, and isn't big enough that you can look with both eyes instead of one.

You are aware there are telescopes with inbuilt cameras that let you display the image on a screen?

Again, all this complaining is just deflecting from the issues.
Images like these can be obtained by anyone, including yourself.

You are just looking for an excuse to dismiss reality.

Actually, they are not. Neither the telescope nor the binocular actually sees at a greater distance (try looking towards the horizon). They see at a greater magnification.

Again, you are just further demonstrating Earth is round.
A telescope isn't magic.
It wont magically let you see through Earth.

But seeing at create magnification means it is more powerful.

And again, you are still provide an explanation of how the different phases work.
So far all your excuses have failed.

And likewise, you haven't shown any problem at all with the RE model, instead your pathetic BS about it have been refuted, with you fleeing from the refutation.

Quote from: Kami on February 24, 2023, 07:52:50 AM

bulma: The definition of 'amateur' is 'unpaid' or 'not professional', not 'completely incompetent'

You seem to be confusing those two. There are insanely competent amateur astronomers (some have even found a moon orbiting an asteroid), just because you can not figure out how a simple telescope works does not mean noone can.

Your definition of "amateur" appears to be "part-time unpaid lackey who is nonetheless used by the system."

Are you describing yourself as an "amateur" writer?

My definition of amateur is an actual freelancer. As in, you are doing something because you love the thing, you are not under contract.

That's what millions of amateur astrophotographers are. Have you been living under a rock? Google it.

Here's my amateur shot of the Moon I took a few years ago.


Not great, super tough to get critical focus and resolution manually tracking, but it was fun to get out there at 3:00 AM and shoot a nearly full moon for a couple of hours (took maybe 150+ exposures) with very little light pollution. Celestron C90 MAK & Canon 5D Mark II.

Quote

You don't realize that some telescopes are more powerful than binoculars?

Actually, they are not. Neither the telescope nor the binocular actually sees at a greater distance (try looking towards the horizon). They see at a greater magnification. I think maybe surveyor's tools can see at a greater distance, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Yes, more power to resolve an image at distance greater than the naked eye. What's your point?

Quote

You think the China National Space Administration (CNSA) answers to NASA? Think again.

You actually think they are different organizations?

The entire space race was a hoax!

Umm, yeah, they are different orgs and China was not involved in the "space race". Know your history.

NASA/CNSA or whatever else, all the same organization. Every astronaut, every astrophysicist, everyone who works for the secret has to sign something like this (from NASA's own site).

Quote

Disclosure of Confidential Information - 18 U.S.C. 1905

Umm, do your research. It's from the DOJ and it applies to every government worker and contractor, not just NASA. My god you're so brainwashed by your obsession with NASA that you can't even think critically. NASA is not the entirety of the Federal gov't. As of 2022, NASA is 0.3% of the Federal Budget.

Section 1905 of Title 18 prohibits the disclosure of various forms of confidential government information including trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work or apparatus by an employee of the United States.

You know, if you work for the Feds you're not allowed to give away confidential stuff. You have to sign similar at any corporation in America regarding their IP. Duh.

And no one in the Chinese space agency is signing that document. Who would they peddle confidential info to? Themselves? My god you're dense.

Now, why can't you actually address the topic and answer the questions at hand regarding moon phases? Why do you keep dodging the actual issues?

- What is doing the 'projecting'?
- Where is this image of the moon located that is being projected?
- Where is the projected Moon located on a given day? As in, I can look up exactly where the moon will be at any given moment given my location and it matches. Can you do the same? If so, how do you predict that?
- How do the moon phases work?

Quote from: Kami on February 24, 2023, 07:52:50 AM

bulma: The definition of 'amateur' is 'unpaid' or 'not professional', not 'completely incompetent'

You seem to be confusing those two. There are insanely competent amateur astronomers (some have even found a moon orbiting an asteroid), just because you can not figure out how a simple telescope works does not mean noone can.

Your definition of "amateur" appears to be "part-time unpaid lackey who is nonetheless used by the system."

As in, "Hey lackey! Help me dig here! Wow, you found a dinosaur (that I totally didn't plant here). I guess I'll promote you from getting my coffee to (maybe sometime in the next 20 years) actually having a paid salary."

My definition of amateur is an actual freelancer. As in, you are doing something because you love the thing, you are not under contract. In fact, this is the real word origin of the term (from French amateur "one who loves, lover"). In actual fact, amateurs can be skilled at something. They don't have to rookies. It's a term that has taken on demeaning connotations. But no, amateur doesn't mean unpaid. It means you are not doing it for the money. This is a subtle but significant difference.
I worked hours on end game programming. Never made a cent. Never want to make a cent, as I typically had a part-time job and this was a hobby. I happen to know some of these games I made were better than the stuff that "professional" people were trying to make money on. I should know as I played them (the demos, at least, having discovered that most of them weren't worth paying money). The actual difference was they paid a bunch of people to help them, and then expected to turn around and make a profit. Some of these games were awful in fact, or straight up boring. Oh sure, they had original graphics. I had shamelessly stolen graphics (I'm a programmer, not an artist). Paying people to do stuff for you doesn't make you a better programmer.

Professional isn't good, amateur isn't bad. But the "amateurs" you speak of are not amateurs. They are rookies. They are part of the system, they shill just as strongly.

Only difference with astronomy: It is very hard to 'plant' a star/planet/asteroid/etc..
So there are hundreds of unpaid people around the world who observe the night sky because they are fascinated by it and love doing it, and somehow they are still.. shills?

You deny observations that one could to with a $200 telescope because you yourself are too incompetent to perform then, and thus every one who is competent enough has to be a shill? I thought elon musk was peak narcissism, but I guess you have him beat.

So basically, because you paid $200 (probably more actually, since even regular telescopes can get up to $30k, no joke, look at this: https://www.astronomytrek.com/10-superior-backyard-telescopes-for-advanced-astronomy/ ) you don't even think to ask "can this really see farther away? Or is it just blowing up distant objects?"

I'm pretty sure that before I decided I had more fun just looking at stars in the sky than I did trying to get the damn thing to work right when a comet was moving past, that I looked at ground level. Pretty sure that I never ever saw any curvature. And in fact, every picture of the so-called "curvature" is a shot from space (NASA), or someone altering something.

Someone applying curve to what would otherwise look similar to this.

Even atop Everest, straight line across. The straight line is what I see from every mountain I've been on.

Yet this guy expects us to believe he saw a curved horizon. Digital editing is a thing.

 Dude, even you guys are shills. When people who probably aren't astronomers still shill for Big Space, you expect me to believe that "amateur" astronomers aren't ? Nah, man.

Why would you expect to see any curvature looking at the horizon from ground level?

Dude, even you guys are shills. When people who probably aren't astronomers still shill for Big Space, you expect me to believe that "amateur" astronomers aren't ? Nah, man.

I guess that makes you a shill for flat earth then.

And yes, there are cheap telescopes and expensive telescopes. Like most things. Riveting observation on your part.

Now, why can't you actually address the topic and answer the questions at hand regarding moon phases? Why do you keep dodging the actual issues?

- What is doing the 'projecting' of the moon image?
- Where is this image of the moon located that is being projected?
- Where is the projected Moon located on a given day? As in, I can look up exactly where the moon will be at any given moment given my location and it will match when the time comes around. Can you do the same? If so, how do you predict that?
- How do the moon phases work? Specifically, what produces the crescent moon at its predictable intervals?

So basically, because you paid $200 (probably more actually, since even regular telescopes can get up to $30k, no joke, look at this: https://www.astronomytrek.com/10-superior-backyard-telescopes-for-advanced-astronomy/ ) you don't even think to ask "can this really see farther away? Or is it just blowing up distant objects?"

Your question is delusional garbage.

It relies upon your fantasy of us magically having our vision limited by magic pixies.

Your ability to see depends upon several factors.
The first, and most simplest, is if there is another object blocking the view.
You can't see an object which has been obstructed by the horizon because Earth is blocking the view.
Asking if a telescope will allow you to see further than the horizon is like asking if it will let you see through a brick wall.

The next 2 are related, as changing one will influence the other.
One is its angular size. Your ability to resolve an object depends on its angular size.
If its angular size is too small, you cannot resolve it.
The other is light and contrast. There needs to be enough light reaching your eye from that direction for you to see it, and importantly, it needs to have contrast against the surroundings. If it is brighter than its surroundings, this can allow it to be seen even if you can't resolve it.

In no case is distance alone the issue.

A telescope deals with these latter 2 points.
The wide opening allows more light to enter to be focused to your eye (or imaging device) making you able to see fainter objects.
The wide opening also magnifies the image, making the object have a larger angular size, allowing you to resolve smaller objects.

It is delusional garbage, based upon your fantasy that needs some magic to stop people seeing past the horizon.

To those not trapped in such a delusional fantasy, they realise your question is stupid.

Pretty sure that I never ever saw any curvature.

Why would you expect to see curvature across an image of Earth looking through a telescope?
You would be viewing a smaller portion of the horizon making it HARDER to see any curvature.

And in fact, every picture of the so-called "curvature" is a shot from space (NASA), or someone altering something.

No, it isn't.
Pictures easily showing curvature from left to right, significant enough to easily be seen by the unaided eye, are always shot from a very high altitude, as that is what is required to easily see the curvature in that direction. (And there are space agencies other than NASA.)
But other images, shot from near ground level, still show curvature, such as objects disappearing from the bottom up.

But this has nothing at all to do with the topic.
Yet again, you have entirely failed to address the issue, showing the FE is pure garbage, and feel the need to flee from it to something else to pretend the RE is garbage.

Even atop Everest, straight line across. The straight line is what I see from every mountain I've been on.

Then you clearly have no idea what a straight line is.
The horizon is always curved, as it traces a circle around you. A straight line can't do that.

Dude, even you guys are shills.

No, we aren't.
It is just that unlike you, we care about the truth.
So we expose your delusional BS.

Now again, care to explain how the phases of the moon work in your delusional fantasy?

You accuse me of being incompetent, just because I don't like to wink in order to view something.

But ummm, you guys didn't know that it is entirely possible to view objects in space using binoculars.

https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-look-into-space-with-telescopes-but-not-binoculars-124143

Two eyes are usually better than one.

Your eyes are spaced a few inches apart, so they provide slightly different viewpoints. Thanks to the way the human brain combines the streams of images coming in through two eyes, most people perceive the world with depth in three dimensions, not like a flat picture.

Binoculars are designed to amplify this effect. That’s why wildlife watchers love to use binoculars. Distant birds and animals pop in spectacular 3D, making you feel as though you could reach out and touch them.

This special quality of binoculars works best at distances that aren’t too big compared to how far apart the binoculars’ lenses are. That means it’s not easy to make it work when you’re looking at a star so far away. As a result, astronomers mostly make do with one image. It’s much cheaper and simpler to control one telescope instead of two.

Telescopes have some downsides for beginners, though. Most people looking through an astronomical telescope for the first time are baffled by their astronomer friend’s enthusiastic chatter. Why? Because they see nothing! They’re not used to looking with only one eye – which is pretty tricky to do.

Plus, the view at high magnification is totally unfamiliar: There are no landmarks, no sense of scale or proportion. Only a tiny piece of the sky is visible, often flipped upside down and backwards.

Binoculars – which are basically just two telescopes bolted together – fix all these problems. You can still see what you saw with your own eyes, but in vastly more detail. Everything is brighter. The unfamiliar new things are seen by both eyes, so your brain more easily accepts them as real. Your eyesight has been powered up, rather than replaced.

Like I said. Cheapskate assholes couldn't be bothered to make two lenses and invert the image.

I'm perfectly happy to view space with my own eyes or binoculars. I'm also okay with viewing objects in a microscope (for these are objects I cannot see with my own eyes).  But since I can see objects in the sky, and you had the gall to charge anywhere from $200 upward to $30,000, I think I'm right to boycott your product. Especially since I can quickly locate a shooting star with one, while the other, the inversion means I panic and can't find it in time.

Two eyes are usually better than one.

Yup. My two eyes are better than your one, especially since you haven't the sense to just pull out something handheld but big and heavy that you can't just move around you. It takes more time to move or pivot a telescope due to its weight. Or you could, you know, move your own body and turn. It's also not inverted so if there's a comet, I can actually find it. Telescopes are overrated pieces of junk. The most expensive binoculars are $3,200, the most expensive portable telescope is $30,000. About ten times the price, and about 5 times the weight. Unless you desperately need magnification over 10x (I do not for amateur astronomy), that's what it is. Junk.

But no, it's magnification, not range. Even the link above mentioned that you cannot actually see farther, just the range you can see, larger.

Incompetent people don't understand how to same money as they have no sense or ability to question ideas. Sell that telescope and buy a microscope or binoculars.

Btw, if you're curious, there is a binocular telescope in Arizona.

Btw, if you're curious, there is a binocular telescope in Arizona.

You don't need a telescope, binoculars, or even two eyes to see the phases of the moon. One eye will do.

Now, why can't you actually address the topic and answer the questions at hand regarding moon phases? Why do you keep dodging the actual issues?

- What is doing the 'projecting' of the moon image?
- Where is this image of the moon located that is being projected?
- Where is the projected Moon located on a given day? As in, I can look up exactly where the moon will be at any given moment given my location and it will match when the time comes around. Can you do the same? If so, how do you predict that?
- How do the moon phases work? Specifically, what produces the crescent moon at its predictable intervals?

You accuse me of being incompetent, just because I don't like to wink in order to view something.

No, we accuse you of being dishonest and/or delusional, because you keep spouting delusional garbage, even after it has been refuted; all while deflecting away from your complete inability to address the issue at hand.

But ummm, you guys didn't know that it is entirely possible to view objects in space using binoculars.

We most certainly did know that.
We also know it is possible to view objects in space without any assistance.
I can look up at the sky and see the moon. I don't need a telescope or binoculars to do that.

But a telescope, especially one on a tracking mount can be quite useful for taking high resolution photos of things in space like the moon.
Photos which can be used to demonstrate the moon is round.

But no, it's magnification, not range.

Yes, as already described, yet you still bring this up as if you are making a point.
Your vision is not magically limited.

Now again, care to explain how the phases of the moon work, or will you continue with these pathetic deflections?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 26, 2023, 07:18:07 PM

Btw, if you're curious, there is a binocular telescope in Arizona.

You don't need a telescope, binoculars, or even two eyes to see the phases of the moon. One eye will do.

Now, why can't you actually address the topic and answer the questions at hand regarding moon phases? Why do you keep dodging the actual issues?

- What is doing the 'projecting' of the moon image?
- Where is this image of the moon located that is being projected?
- Where is the projected Moon located on a given day? As in, I can look up exactly where the moon will be at any given moment given my location and it will match when the time comes around. Can you do the same? If so, how do you predict that?
- How do the moon phases work? Specifically, what produces the crescent moon at its predictable intervals?

-Asked and answered.
-Asked and answered. You need to work on reading and reading comprehension.
-I couldn't begin to tell you. The funny thing about a projection is we really can't say how profoundly it's being projected. Only that we can predict where it wil be projected and not accurately know where it actually is. Why I don't peddle math is I know when I don't know, I don't try to blind people with formulas. We only know that a new moon is 90° to the side of the sun, a full moon is in direct path, and everything else is in arcs or angles between that. Where the moon is right at this second!? Don't know, don't care. Do you know where your brother is right now? Probably not. I have as much intwrest in the real location of the sun and moon. The projected image of the sun and moon are suitable for navigation. That's all we need.
-Asked and answered. Seriously. Learn to read.

It already told you that moon phases have to do with sun-moon angular alignment, and how we see the sun and moon at an angle. The moon also gets hit by the sun at different angles.
You decided to ignore that answer and now it's the third or fourth time I've told you the same answer. This is what I mean by asked and answered.

You're not gonna get some answer you like all of a sudden.

(For reference, the actual moon rather than the image. The upper atmosphere, where it turns from mostly flat and above us, to projecting so it looks like it is facing us)

 "Oh but I didn't hear your answer that time either."

 No, you didn't LIKE my answer. Quite different.

Quote from: Stash on February 26, 2023, 08:47:01 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 26, 2023, 07:18:07 PM

Btw, if you're curious, there is a binocular telescope in Arizona.

You don't need a telescope, binoculars, or even two eyes to see the phases of the moon. One eye will do.

Now, why can't you actually address the topic and answer the questions at hand regarding moon phases? Why do you keep dodging the actual issues?

- What is doing the 'projecting' of the moon image?
- Where is this image of the moon located that is being projected?
- Where is the projected Moon located on a given day? As in, I can look up exactly where the moon will be at any given moment given my location and it will match when the time comes around. Can you do the same? If so, how do you predict that?
- How do the moon phases work? Specifically, what produces the crescent moon at its predictable intervals?

Question: What is doing the 'projecting' of the moon image?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 27, 2023, 05:33:23 AM

-Asked and answered.

No answer I can find. For something to be "projected", you have your light source passing through the thing you want projected and then on to a surface. So far, all you have is a light source. And perhaps a surface, the dome. But no thing (the moon) to project.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 27, 2023, 05:33:23 AM

-Asked and answered. You need to work on reading and reading comprehension.

No you haven't. See above. Where is the image of the moon housed, stored, located, that is used to project it onto a dome? Without out it, there's nothing to "project". You have no xplained this.

-I couldn't begin to tell you. The funny thing about a projection is we really can't say how profoundly it's being projected. Only that we can predict where it wil be projected and not accurately know where it actually is.

So you have no idea how it's projected, where it is, no clue whatsoever, but somehow have determined that it is? Got it.

What do you use to predict the phases?

Why I don't peddle math is I know when I don't know, I don't try to blind people with formulas. We only know that a new moon is 90° to the side of the sun, a full moon is in direct path, and everything else is in arcs or angles between that. Where the moon is right at this second!? Don't know, don't care.

Umm, here's your narcissism on full display again. I, I, I, I over and over again. You do realize that other people exist, right? And that other people may rely on such predictive knowledge regardless of whether you do or care or not. This isn't about you. Not everything is about you. Some older cultures deeply relied on such knowledge to survive.

The point being you have zero explanation for moon phases and nary a clue when it comes to predictive values. Can't even explain why a crescent moon has a crescent, you know, arc'd. Funny how that is.

Massive fail on your part.

-Asked and answered. Seriously. Learn to read.

It already told you that moon phases have to do with sun-moon angular alignment, and how we see the sun and moon at an angle. The moon also gets hit by the sun at different angles.
You decided to ignore that answer and now it's the third or fourth time I've told you the same answer. This is what I mean by asked and answered.

No, you've never been able to explain how people at various locations see the same phase at the same time. Your argument breaks here by your own words, "how we see the sun and moon at an angle. The moon also gets hit by the sun at different angles." 

Those different angles mean that everyone wouldn't see the same phase. They do.

You need to explain exactly how this works:



And just saying "angles" over and over again explains nothing. Your entire model has people seeing different phases at the same time, they don't. Massive fail.

You're not gonna get some answer you like all of a sudden.

Correct, as you don't have one. You can't explain:

- Where the moon is projected from
- Why an arc'd shadow
- How everyone from various locations all see the same phase at the same time
- Zero predictive capabilities of phases when everyone else has the ability

(For reference, the actual moon rather than the image. The upper atmosphere, where it turns from mostly flat and above us, to projecting so it looks like it is facing us)

 "Oh but I didn't hear your answer that time either."

 No, you didn't LIKE my answer. Quite different.

It's not that I don't "like" your answer(s). It's just that it is not an answer at all. It explains nothing. See above.

Suffice to say, you can't explain literally any aspect of the phases of the moon as observed by all of us. A colossal fail.

-Asked and answered.

If it was actually answered, you would have been able to link to the answer rather than just asserting it was answered.

The reality is that you have no answer.
All you have are BS excuses, like the excuses you provide now to avoid answering simple questions.

The fact is that you have no explanation for the phases of the moon.
All you have is blind faith that Earth is flat, so you want to pretend it is.

It already told you that moon phases have to do with sun-moon angular alignment, and how we see the sun and moon at an angle. The moon also gets hit by the sun at different angles.
You decided to ignore that answer and now it's the third or fourth time I've told you the same answer. This is what I mean by asked and answered.

No, we decided to clearly explain what is wrong with that answer, with you then fleeing from your inability to defend your delusional BS.

It isn't that we didn't like your answer, it is that you didn't actually provide a coherent answer which explained anything.

And you are jumping around all over the place.

Start from the basics, are you still claiming the moon is flat, or are you going to accept the RE explanation with a round moon?
If you are going for a flat moon, then what causes the phases?
We know it can't simply be the sun being a spotlight and the moon entering that spotlight, as that would cause fundamentally different phases.

Stop just deflecting away from your inability to defend your BS, and start either defending it or admitting you can't and that you have absolutely no idea at all how the moon's phases could work on a flat Earth.

If you are happy to admit what you don't know, then be honest for once and admit you have no idea how any of it works, and you are just making up whatever BS excuses you can to pretend Earth is flat, because you can't handle reality.

No answer I can find.

You weren't looking very hard.





Basically, like this. When the sun and moon are within field of vision, you get something like this.
But let's say the sun moves off to the right outside your vision (it sets), but the moon is still up. Sun is still parallel to moon? Full moon.

If the sun is not parallel to the moon, new moon in the sky. No light? Wrong angle? New moon.

Why do I need to know down to the exact coordinate where the sun and moon are? Such things care for themselves. It is is only important that we understand the % fullness, and that it relates to the percent of illumination from the sun and the location from each other.

Xplained. Great 90s spelling, btw. I have a totally Xtreme new theory. Can You Handle It?

So you have no idea how it's projected, where it is, no clue whatsoever, but somehow have determined that it is? Got it.

What do you use to predict the phases?

Simple. I look at the same tide and lunar phase prediction things online. The fact the moon and sun are projected has absolutely no bearing on what time the moon and sun rise or set. They are accurate to the minute (except for sidereal days, which are bullshit).

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@4763558

For the record, right now it will be a waxing gibbous with 55% illumination. I don't need to know any more than that. Do you? Do you have a condition I should be aware of?


You don't like my answers. So you refuse to see them, and call them a fail.

You weren't looking very hard.

And so you will provide a quote, or direct link to the post where you provided the answer?

Your images explain nothing.
They are just crappy drawinging to try and cling to your delusional fantasy.
They have no explanatory power.
They have no explanation for what is allowing to see the sun and moon or not.
They have no explanation for why the moon displays different phases.
In short, they answer nothing.

But let's say the sun moves off to the right outside your vision (it sets), but the moon is still up. Sun is still parallel to moon? Full moon.

What do you mean parallel?
Are you saying your sun and moon are just flat discs, and if those discs are parallel, i.e. the 2 planes are parallel to each other, you get a full moon?

And regardless, WHY?
What magic causes this to happen?
Why does being parallel make it a full moon?
What causes the moon to be parallel or not?

And then you still have the issue of how is this magically projected to everyone.

And notice how this is completely different to the previous explanations you have provided, so now you are up to at least 3 mutually contradictory explanations for the phases of the moon.

How about you have a think, pick one you think you can actually explain and defend, and stick to that rather than continually jumping between fundamentally different models.

If the sun is not parallel to the moon, new moon in the sky. No light? Wrong angle? New moon.

So you are saying it is either a full moon or a new moon, with no possibility for any other phase.
Notice the issue you have made for yourself?
This negates the possibility of any other phase of the moon, such as the crescent which was the subject of this thread.
According to your delusional BS we should see a full moon, and then instantly switches to a new moon.
There should be no crescent moon, quarter moon or gibbous moon.
Yet these are all observed in reality.

So that explanation clearly doesn't work.

Why do I need to know down to the exact coordinate where the sun and moon are? Such things care for themselves. It is is only important that we understand the % fullness, and that it relates to the percent of illumination from the sun and the location from each other.

It isn't necessarily their exact coordinates. It is how the coordinates vary relative to each other and Earth.
This is needed to produce a coherent model with a chance of matching reality.
This will show how long you should expect the different phases for and what the different phases to expect are.
This also allows us to evaluate the model, to see if it does match reality, or is just garbage.

Otherwise, you can just spout whatever delusional BS excuse you want and pretend it works with no thought at all.
You would never accept anything like that for the RE, so why should anyone accept it for the FE?

We see with the RE model, with a distant moon, and an incredibly distant sun, that the moon should move through phases, so is the cycle starts at a new moon, it will move on to a crescent moon, slowly increasing the portion of the moon illuminated until you reach a quarter moon roughly 1/4 of the way through the cycle, followed by a gibbous moon, with a full moon only appearing briefly at 1/2 way through the cycle, before going back to a gibbous moon, then a last quarter, then a crescent then back to a new moon.

Conversely, your latest garbage has we should have a full moon for some unknown amount of time, which instantly changes to a new moon for some other unknown amount of time.

Simple. I look at the same tide and lunar phase prediction things online.

i.e. you have no ability to predict it from the model, and instead need to have delusional BS to pretend to have an explanation, while using the RE model to actually predict the phases of the moon.

sidereal days

Why do you keep bringing this up as if you should magically experience a solar day as a sidereal day?
Were you just wanting to further emphasise your dishonesty and make sure everyone knows that you are knowingly spouting pure BS?
That you know all the BS you are spouting to pretend Earth is flat is delusional BS?
That you know you need a RE to explain reality, but you can't handle reality?

For the record, right now it will be a waxing gibbous with 55% illumination. I don't need to know any more than that.

And the question is why?
Can you explain how this phase is observed by EVERYONE all over Earth, from your delusional model?

And of course, the answer is no, as your latest BS only allows for a full moon and a new moon, there are no other phases.

You don't like my answers. So you refuse to see them, and call them a fail.

Again, it isn't that we don't like them. It is that you are not providing answers.
You are providing BS excuses to pretend your delusional fantasy can work.

So far the only coherent explanation for the phases of the moon relies upon a RE with a distant moon and even more distant sun.
You are yet to provide an answer for how the phases could work on your flat BS.

It’s round.

No other explanation works.

Sorry. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤗

It’s round.

No other explanation works.

Sorry. ‍♂️

You see, round does not work for me here.

- Why does the sun and moon appear to perfectly interlock during an eclipse? The model shown here is unsatisfactory, primarily because you should have an eclipse all the time with as big as the sun is.

-Why does the sun and moon appear to be roughly the same size? The explanation given violates Occam's Razor. Instead of the sun and moon actually being the same size (wouldn't want to think that), and being drawn by the Earth, we have to believe under current round Earth dogma that the sun is multiple times larger than the Earth and the moon, and multiple times distance in order to perfectly appear to be the right size. I'm sorry but this is a level of absurd coincidence that requires more faith than simply being the right size in the first place.
- If you believe in gravity (I don't, I believe in applying laws of buoyancy to everything), it makes substantially more sense that Earth has larger gravity and is pulling the sun and moon (as well a pulling objects on Earth downward), than it does that the sun is much bigger than the Earth.
-Why, you ask? Well, more massive objects exerting gravity (even if it could suspend its normal behavior of falling downward to instead do orbital pull, the primary flaw of gravitational theory; the flaw being that the moon and Earth being less massive, should simply fall into the sun), should mean that if you somehow can explain the Earth orbiting the sun instead of falling into it, you still have to to contend with the logical inconsistency of why people and furniture and all the rest aren't pulled upward towards the sun. The sun should be more massive, no? In fact without showing anything about the shape of the Earth, this is a rather noticeable hole in heliocentric thinking. Earth rotating does nothing to explain how objects on Earth settle towards the ground when the gravity of something else is more massive, because rotation of objects (as seen on gravitron rides) exerts an upward propulsive force on objects, not a restraining force.
- If the sun were indeed bigger, the mass of an object directly correlates to the effect heat has on it. Studies with sparkler fireworks show they are quite hot (over 1000 degrees), but have low mass so they seldom cause burns. The Earth should be engulfed in flame given the much greater heat, even adjusting for distance.
-The inconsistency between holding all water inside a round Earth and birds flying freely. Because water is a mass of loose molecules, its weight is done individually weighs very little and its whole weighs quite alot. That this gravity is able to catch both light and heavy objects, and the Earth is moving and sloshing quite fast under this model but stays in place, yet everything from a pigeon to a vulture to a jumbo jet is able to fly, no sweat.
-I haven't gotten to specific problems of a round object holding water (you can test this in your shower!) in the first place. There's already enough problems with this.

I don't know what model works perfectly under all conditions. I'm often guessing many times. I only know what feels false. And that feels false. It feels very false. When authority figures use it to push climate theory, you know it is very wrong.

-Oh yeah, and every (real) picture of the horizon shows a flat horizon.

Round earthers have to point out how distant objects look funny to push their theory. None of that proves they are actually sitting on a curved area. It just proves the laws of perspective creates strange effects. Architecture would be impossible if you couldn't build roads more than 3 miles.

Back to crescent moon theory.

Quote from: mrg on February 27, 2023, 01:48:23 PM

It’s round.

No other explanation works.

Sorry. ‍♂️

I don't know what model works perfectly under all conditions. I'm often guessing many times.

You don't know what model works under any conditions.

You can't even remotely explain why a non-helio cosmos and spherical earth allows us to observe the same moonphases at the same time from various locations by everyone...
- You don't know where the image of the moon is hidden for it to be projected on your dome
- You have no idea what causes the arc'd phases of the moon nor when they will happen
- You don't know how eclipses are created as observed
- You have no idea where an eclipse umbra can be tracked/observed
- You have no map to even attempt the above

I only know what feels false. And that feels false. It feels very false. When authority figures use it to push climate theory, you know it is very wrong.

You do realize that that the helio model predates any mention of your "climate theory" by like 500 years, right? Next thing you know, you'll be saying that Copernicus worked for NASA. Thick as a brick.

-Oh yeah, and every (real) picture of the horizon shows a flat horizon.

- You have no evidence the image is faked. And there are lots of the same taken by different people and you could actually verify it yourself as many others have. Put your money where your mouth is and produce some evidencee for a change. Your "feels" mean nothing.

In the mean time, develop some observably correct theories as to how moonphases and eclipses work. Thus far, you have none.

You do realize that that the helio model predates any mention of your "climate theory" by like 500 years, right? Next thing you know, you'll be saying that Copernicus worked for NASA. Thick as a brick.

You have it backwards. NASA has the same religious underpinnings as many of these earlier ppl. Freemasonry.

Uhhhh, yeah I know the picture isn't faked. You know how I know? Because I can see a similar image looking out at the horizon at the ocean. And mountain pictures, I can likewise see a flat horizon.

Real images are congruent with what you can see with your own eyes. Fake images hope that you haven't climbed a mountain yourself, and don't know better when you see a curved horizon from a mountain top.

If I digitally altered the sun to be bigger and blue, would it matter that I'm an extreme professional at Photoshop (I'm not, if I were for the sake of this argument)? Do you think the sun is twice or three times its size and a blue sun? No! C'mon now! Outside of a film, when digital edit doesn't match reality, you know the difference. At the very least, having looked at a coastline (easy to visit, unlike space), a non-doctored image of the shore looks diffe from a faked one. Besides, I swiped this picture from someone. Take it up with them.

Btw, opengl has an entire article about making curved horizons for games.
https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/103524/how-to-render-a-curved-horizon-when-rendering-terrain-far-away
Question: if the horizon were NATURALLY curved, why is this process necessary? It's to make games because round earthers are clients. They buy games that support their theories. But the games require digital altering (usually fisheye) to get this effect!

-Why does the sun and moon appear to be roughly the same size? The explanation given violates Occam's Razor. Instead of the sun and moon actually being the same size (wouldn't want to think that), and being drawn by the Earth, we have to believe under current round Earth dogma that the sun is multiple times larger than the Earth and the moon, and multiple times distance in order to perfectly appear to be the right size. I'm sorry but this is a level of absurd coincidence that requires more faith than simply being the right size in the first place.

Bulma, this is probably the only thing that I will ever concede to you. Yes, this is an incredible coincidence. (Disclaimer: We do not yet really understand the origin of life, and a large moon may play a significant role, especially in species moving to land in tidal pools, so one can argue that in order for an intelligent, land-based civilisation to arise one needs a large moon, so it may not be as large a coincidence than it seems, but this is still very much debated.)

However, if you accept gravity and nuclear fusion (as demonstrated by H-bombs), these are literally the only two things to explain the formation and workings of our solar system. Compare that to the 100s of different things FE needs to invoke (UA, buoyancy, celestial gears, bendy light, ...) to explain simple observations, let alone the massive conspiracy involving tens of millions of people keeping quiet for no good reason, occam's razor has a clear favourite

Quote

You do realize that that the helio model predates any mention of your "climate theory" by like 500 years, right? Next thing you know, you'll be saying that Copernicus worked for NASA. Thick as a brick.

You have it backwards. NASA has the same religious underpinnings as many of these earlier ppl. Freemasonry.

And oh lawdy, you're one of those people. Perhaps I forgot.

You realize that Copernicus pre-dates the Freemasons by 150+ years, right? And yep, I called it, you think Copernicus worked for NASA. Still thick as a brick.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

You can't even remotely explain why a non-helio cosmos and spherical earth allows us to observe the same moonphases at the same time from various locations by everyone...
- You don't know where the image of the moon is hidden for it to be projected on your dome
- You have no idea what causes the arc'd phases of the moon nor when they will happen
- You don't know how eclipses are created as observed
- You have no idea where an eclipse umbra can be tracked/observed
- You have no map to even attempt the above

Where's your map, btw? You need one to pretty much explain all of those things.

So being entirely incapable of providing any explanation of how the phases of the moon work in your fantasy, you instead resort to spouting already refuted BS about the RE?

You see, round does not work for me here.

And that is entirely your problem.
You are unable to show a single fault with the RE model.

Why does the sun and moon appear to perfectly interlock during an eclipse?

What exactly do you mean by "interlock"?
They certainly are NOT the same size.
This is quite evident as if they were perfectly the same angular size, totality would last for an instant.
Instead we have situations where totality is never achieved because the angular size of the moon is too small so we get an annular eclipse.
But as the distance varies we also end up with situations where totality can last more than 4 minutes.

The model shown here is unsatisfactory, primarily because you should have an eclipse all the time with as big as the sun is.

The model there is "unsatisfactory" because it isn't drawn to scale, and doesn't show the full 3D motion that occurs, with the moon's orbital plane on an angle.
But that is understandable, due to the scale involved.
The distance between Earth and the sun is 150 000 000 km. The radius of Earth is 6371 km. And the radius of the moon is 1737 km. And the region of totality can be as small as a few hundred km.
Being generous and making 1 px 1000 km, the image would need to be 150 000 px wide to be able to show the distance between the sun and Earth.

This makes a too scale diagram incredibly large, and not all that useful.
The same information can be conveyed with a not-to-scale diagram.


Conversely, your justification for why it is inadequate is just yet another baseless assertion; an assertion supported by absolutely nothing, but thrown out as an excuse for why you don't like the RE model.

With the sun that large, why should we have an eclipse all the time?
Just what do you mean by that? Every new moon should be a solar eclipse, or literally all the time it should be a solar eclipse?
Do you think the sun is too big or too small?
Because a larger sun means less of an eclipse.

-Why does the sun and moon appear to be roughly the same size? The explanation given violates Occam's Razor.

Due to the distances to them.
Especially note that it is only ROUGHLY.
This does not violate Occam's razor at all.
In order to get to Occam's razor, you need to have an explanation that actually works.
If your explanation doesn't work it fails before that stage.
The idea that the sun and moon are the same size and the same distance entirely fails to explain what is observed in reality, so you need to invent all sorts of ridiculous BS to pretend it works.

The fact that annular solar eclipses occur means the moon must be smaller than the sun.
And that means the moon must be larger than any region of totality that is observed.
The illumination patterns of the moon show that the distance to the sun must be many times the distance to the moon.

Any other alternative must be able to explain these BEFORE it gets to Occam's Razor.
So if you think you have an alternative, then provide it.

But there are also plenty of other differences.
All the evidence demonstrates that the moon merely reflects light while the sun emits its own.
Likewise, we have the moon take roughly 1 month to complete a cycle of apparent north-south movement, while the sun takes a year.
This indicates they are quite different, and likely in different locations.

Conversely, if they were the same size and same distance away, we would expect them to behave quite similarly. And more importantly, we would expect them to crash into each other.
We wouldn't get a solar eclipse, we would get the moon crashing into the sun.
The fact we get eclipses instead of this crash indicates the moon is closer than the sun.

And even if we ignore all that, it still isn't more complex.
In both cases you have a specific ratio of sizes and specific ratio of distances.

Your idea has the ratio being 1:1.
Reality has a different ratio.
Neither is simpler than the other for that aspect.

So it certainly doesn't fail Occam's razor.

we have to believe under current round Earth dogma

Not dogma, EVIDENCE!
Something you severely lack.
The available evidence shows this to be the case.
If you want to suggest an alternative, then provide one which fits the evidence.

I'm sorry but this is a level of absurd coincidence that requires more faith than simply being the right size in the first place.

No, it isn't.

Both cases require a specific ratio of the sizes and a specific ratio of distances, so an equal amount of faith for that aspect.
The difference comes from other explanations, where the evidence matches the sun being much further than the moon, but to have them the same size the same distance away requires blind faith that it all just magically works out, with no explanation at all for how.

If you believe in gravity (I don't, I believe in applying laws of buoyancy to everything), it makes substantially more sense that Earth has larger gravity and is pulling the sun and moon

No, it doesn't.
That would be absolute garbage.

If you accept gravity as real, then you entirely shoot yourself in the foot.
That is because orbital period is based upon distance to the object.
So if the sun and moon were both orbiting Earth, then they should have the same orbital period.
And note that this would still require Earth to be round and rotating.
That is because the sun's apparent path in a day is not an orbit.
For example, on the solstice, it remains above a tropic. If it was an orbit it would need to pass the equator.

So with this, you need to explain why the sun's orbital period is 1 year, while the moon's is roughly 1 month.

But more importantly, you need to deal with the other planets.
Why does it appear that the other planets orbit the sun, with paths which make no sense at all if Earth was the larger object?
Why do some planets, which bear a lot of resemblance to Earth, have moon which orbit them?

So yet again, your argument fails.
What makes sense is that the sun is much larger than Earth, with all the planets in the solar system orbiting the sun, and moons orbiting the planets.

There is no reason at all to believe the sun is so tiny. This is just your irrational hatred of reality talking.

the flaw being that the moon and Earth being less massive, should simply fall into the sun

This delusional garbage in no way helps you.
If we were to believe this absolute BS, then it should mean in the delusional BS you propose, the sun and moon (and everything else) should fall into Earth.

Back in reality, what it actually means is that all objects should be accelerating towards that massive object, and if they are moving horizontally as well, that allows them to orbit it.

if you somehow can explain the Earth orbiting the sun

It is quite simple.
Earth is going sideways.
Just like if you have a ball on a string and spin it around.
The string is accelerating the ball towards the centre, causing it to circle.
This is not a difficult concept to understand. Even a child could understand it.

you still have to to contend with the logical inconsistency of why people and furniture and all the rest aren't pulled upward towards the sun.

Again, this is just your delusional BS, asserted with no justification or rational thought.
The only inconsistency here is how you want to pretend that gravity is magic.

There are so many issues with this BS it isn't funny.
Firstly, just like Earth, everything on Earth is being pulled towards the sun. We aren't just sitting idly by as Earth orbits the sun, we are orbiting the sun with Earth.
Just like Earth's tangential velocity stops it falling to the sun and instead orbiting it, the same applies to us. So what you actually want to look at is the tidal force, which while it contributes to tides it certainly isn't strong enough to pull us off Earth. Earth is well outside the sun's Roche limit.

But arguably an issue of equal importance is that size is not everything.
The force of gravity is based upon size and distance. i.e. F=GMm/d^2
Even though the sun is ~300 000 times the mass of Earth, the distance to the sun is over 20 000 times the distance to the centre of Earth, but as the distance term is squared, that gives the effect of the distance being a factor of over 500 000 000. So overall, if you are standing on Earth's surface, the gravitational attraction to Earth is roughly 1600 times the gravitational attraction to the sun.

So even if we ignore the fact that us and Earth are orbiting the sun together, and instead we pretend Earth and the sun are magically held in place a fixed distance apart, we would still be attracted to Earth.
Now you could try your BS on the moon. But then you need to use the tidal force, which is F=2GMmr/d^3, which will still be smaller than the attraction to Earth.

In fact without showing anything about the shape of the Earth, this is a rather noticeable hole in heliocentric thinking.

No, it demonstrates a hole in your thinking. A hole you want to be there so you can pretend the HC model doesn't work, because you hate it.
If you didn't have that hole in your thinking you would realise why your claim is BS.

If the sun were indeed bigger, the mass of an object directly correlates to the effect heat has on it.

No, it doesn't.
That is only the case if you are applying the same amount of heat to the object from an external source, and all other factors are constant.

The Earth should be engulfed in flame given the much greater heat, even adjusting for distance.

Why? Because you say so? You are going to need far more than just a delusional BS assertion.
What you are doing now is like saying if someone started a bush fire, that should ignite every piece of wood on Earth.
It is delusional BS, with no basis in reality.

The inconsistency between holding all water inside a round Earth and birds flying freely.

Once more, there is no inconsistency.
Water doesn't have wings, so it can't generate lift, so it falls.
If you take the wings off a bird, it can't fly.

Again, the fact you ignore something so simple shows just how desperate, dishonest and pathetic your position is.

I haven't gotten to specific problems of a round object holding water (you can test this in your shower!)

No, you haven't gotten to any problems of a round Earth at all.
And as repeatedly pointed out, if you are testing it in a shower, you are testing if EARTH, i.e. the massive ball below you, is capable of holding the water, not a tiny ball you take in with you.
If you want to test it on a tiny ball, you need to be in free fall outside the Roche limit of Earth.
Ignoring the model predicts should happen by ignoring the gravitational attraction to Earth is just more dishonest BS.

I don't know what model works perfectly under all conditions.

No model will work perfectly, as such a model would be so incredibly complex it would be impossible to use.
But the RE model works extremely well, and you are yet to show a fault with it.

I only know what feels false. And that feels false.

And that really is the problem.
You hate reality, so you think reality feels false.
You can't show a single fault with it and instead need to resort to all sorts of dishonest, delusional BS to pretend it is false.

If the RE, HC model was false, don't you think you would be able to show a fault with it?

When authority figures use it to push climate theory, you know it is very wrong.

No, you don't.
You not liking reality doesn't make it false.
Even someone using a truthful model to pedal BS, doesn't make the model false.

Oh yeah, and every (real) picture of the horizon shows a flat horizon.

Because the horizon is a flat circle, just like you would expect for a RE, and NOTHING like you would expect for a FE.
And plenty of images are taken from a high enough altitude to show that curve.

Round earthers have to point out how distant objects look funny to push their theory.

You mean we have to point out how the curvature of Earth is obstructing the view of the bottom of the building.
Something a FE can't explain?

It just proves the laws of perspective creates strange effects.

This is circular reasoning. You so desperately want Earth to be flat, so you blatantly lie about how perspective works to pretend the effects of a RE are actually just the effects of perspective.
Perspective is just simple math based upon angles.
If you want this to happen you either need a curved Earth to obstruct the view, or you need light to magically bend for no reason at all, such that Earth blocks the bent path of the light.

It is NOT simply persepective.

Architecture would be impossible if you couldn't build roads more than 3 miles.

The horizon being at 3 miles when near the surface doesn't mean you can't build roads more than 3 miles.

Back to crescent moon theory.

Yes, try and explain how it works with your delusional BS, as so far we still only have the RE model working.

You have it backwards. NASA has the same religious underpinnings as many of these earlier ppl. Freemasonry.

You seemed to have ignored the point, NASA is fairly recent, Earth was known to be round long before NASA.
And not based upon any religious BS like you cling to, but based upon EVIDENCE, something you severely lack.

Question: if the horizon were NATURALLY curved, why is this process necessary?

Because rendering a flat horizon is trivial. This is also why most game worlds are flat. The math is incredibly simple.
It takes significantly more math, and thus more processing power to produce a curved horizon or a curved world, which in turn makes the game slower.

But did you bother reading perhaps the simplest answer:

One possible solution would be to actually curve the terrain model.

And why do people want this?
Because the view of things in a game doesn't match reality because the game uses flat terrain while reality uses curved terrain.

Now again, care to stop with all these pathetic deflections, and instead try to provide a coherent explanation for what causes the phases of the moon in your flat fantasy?
An explanation which is capable of explaining the apparent look of the phases (including a crescent moon, quarter moon, gibbous moon, new moon and full moon), and explaining when these phases should appear and for how long (either in absolute terms or as part of the cycle), and how everyone on Earth sees the same phase?

Bulma, this is probably the only thing that I will ever concede to you. Yes, this is an incredible coincidence.

I disagree that it is an incredible coincidence.
The distance to the moon varies from 362 600 to 405 400 km (and increasing), while the distance to the sun varies from ~ 147 Gm to 152 Gm.
This means the Moon's angular size, relative to the sun varies from 96% to 110%.

It isn't perfect.
And if it was different, you can just pick some other number.
For example, if it was much further away you could instead go for the size of Earth's shadow during a total lunar eclipse.
Or it being the same apparent size as a different celestial object.