It isn’t possible to explain using the conventional FE model. This is exactly why I keep insisting that FE adherents need to come up with a model that actually works *before* they push their theory. What the common man can observe on a daily basis, how the sun rises and sets, lunar phases and cycles, solar and lunar eclipses, measurable distances between oceans and land masses, measurable distances between cities, etc., demands an explanation.

Yes I want to see a model, too.  Is anyone working on this?

This alone debunks the globe paradigm. The moon is an illuminating heavenly body -- not a rock ball of terra firma one can land on.

For that matter, how far away is Jupiter supposed to be? Yet it *glows* like a *star* in the night sky. It literally gives off light it's so reflective. And that light reaches us here, through Earth's atmosphere even, MILLIONS of miles away! think of how bright it must be up close. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from NASA's released CGI artist renditions of what "Jupiter" supposedly looks like close up.

A complete contradiction. So much so, that it falsifies the whole model -- in the mind of any logical man who can think for himself.

Are you aware of the INVERSE SQUARE law? A 3-dimensional object giving off light, heat, radio waves, or anything else is going to drop off EXPONENTIALLY with distance. Which makes sense if you think about it. Think of the size of the "sphere" that surrounds the source, as you go out 1 mile, 100 miles, 1000 miles, 1 light year, etc. It's losing itself exponentially, as it has to "cover" more and more ground as it spreads out.

THAT is Science. I'm the real scientist. NASA and their lackeys are pushing a RELIGION, not Science.

This alone debunks the globe paradigm. The moon is an illuminating heavenly body -- not a rock ball of terra firma one can land on.

For that matter, how far away is Jupiter supposed to be? Yet it *glows* like a *star* in the night sky. It literally gives off light it's so reflective. And that light reaches us here, through Earth's atmosphere even, MILLIONS of miles away! think of how bright it must be up close. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from NASA's released CGI artist renditions of what "Jupiter" supposedly looks like close up.

A complete contradiction. So much so, that it falsifies the whole model -- in the mind of any logical man who can think for himself.

So, close up, you are seeing the light reflected off 2500 sqft, but far away we see light reflected off 7 million square miles of surface area. That's what you are not getting Matthew.

I gave your you down thumb back, but it wouldn't count it.

It's dreadful and pathetic, and the fact that you think it's "great" completely discredits you.  We know that you refuse to objectively consider the evidence and that your applauding this idiocy as "great" is a clear example of your confirmation bias.

That statement could more or less apply to you too, at least as far as confirmation bias goes.

That statement could more or less apply to you too, at least as far as confirmation bias goes.

False.  Confirmation bias is a glober phenomenon.  All FEs started out as globers, many of us initially thinking that FE was ridiculous.  Matthew here relegated it to a sub-forum that had no visibility on the front page.  But we actually gave FE a chance and looked at it with an open mind.

That statement could more or less apply to you too, at least as far as confirmation bias goes.

True

False.  Confirmation bias is a glober phenomenon.  All FEs started out as globers, many of us initially thinking that FE was ridiculous.  Matthew here relegated it to a sub-forum that had no visibility on the front page.  But we actually gave FE a chance and looked at it with an open mind.

Wrong. Confirmation bias is based on what you believe or want to believe to be true at a given time.

It can.  Does it?  That's actually a problem with the globe explanation of eclipses, where the earth shine (which is supposed to be 41x brighter than moon shine) should prevent the moon from going completely dark during an eclipse.

But that light from the earth diminishes with the inverse square law, and again after the earth's light gets reflected off the moon, while the sun's light is more intense.

Does the moon go completely dark? Our eyes adjust based on the amount of light present, so do cameras to take a good picture. we don't know the ISO, shutter speed, and f stop of the supposed moon landing picture. Most cameras and our eyes don't have the dynamic range to watch an eclipse and simultaneously detect sufficient light from the moon.