That sunlight and moonlight are vastly different is a completely provable thing. For eleven bucks you can pick up a laser thermometer on Amazon. Point it at the sun, and it always measures warmth or heat depending on how high it is or how close it is. I've measured over two hundred degrees from the ground. The moon, from the same position on the ground measures 1 or 2 degrees, and often negative degrees, depending. They are two completely different lights in color, effect and temperature. And while the sun may recharge the moon as Enoch describes, it certainly does not reflect off the moon as modern science says. Everything about modern cosmological science is at odds with Tradition.
The Moon Phases on a Flat Earth.
It appears that The Moon goes through phases on a Flat Earth Model, because as The Sun and Moon orbit the Flat Earth, The Sun moves faster, than The Moon does. So, it "laps" The Moon every 30 days. This is why the Moon goes through a 30 day cycle of waxing and waning. The Moon appears to be "full" when it is furthest from The Sun; 180 degrees from The Sun on its circuit. The Moon appears to be just a sliver, when it is very close to The Sun.
It order to understand this, you must understand The Moon's source of light. The Moon appears to absorb light from The Sun and then glow in the dark. Like any other glow in the dark object, The Moon will not glow in the daylight. That's why The Moon we see during the day, doesn't glow.
If The Moon was just reflecting light from The Sun, its light would be warm, but it isn't. Even concentrated moonlight, while very bright, is not even warm. Of course, concentrated Sunlight is very hot.
At the last full moon, I was amazed by how very bright and white the light was, as the moonlight streamed in through the skylights in my home. The brightness reminded me of LED lights.I agree. When you see a close up of the moon in video or picture, you can see rays of light coming from within/under the "crust", making it appear that the light of the moon may come from smallish led-type lights that turn on/off depending on the phase of the moon. Not a conclusion by any means, just an observation.
I do not agree with some of the claims about the moon by fellow flat earthers.So, where do you believe The Moon's light comes from?
I don't believe the moon is "see through" in daylight.
I don't believe it has a glow in the dark ability, getting charged by the sun.
I don't believe it generates its own light of itself.
However, the difference between moon light and sunlight is provable.
So, where do you believe The Moon's light comes from?From the sun.
From the sun.Why do you think Moonlight isn't warm then?
Why do you think Moonlight isn't warm then?Because it is in the night.
Because it is in the night.Enoch says the moon receives 1/7 of its light from the sun. So, some of the moon's light comes from the sun, but most of it is of the moon itself. My personal experiments with moonlight show is not cold because of the surrounding air, but it is cold by itself. I've tested it on warm nights, hot nights, cold nights, and the moon consistently shines down a temperature near zero degrees. Also, moonlight is different than sunlight in other ways, so it can't be the same light.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rSHs2_116JQAlright, well my super-duper temp detector ray gun is coming tomorrow. So, I'm gonna do my own tests and report back!
I've not read Enoch.
Clearly the moon reflects the sun.
It is a weakened longer wavelength due to the increased distance. That's what makes it different..
And that it is striking earth in the night circle.
Alright, well my super-duper temp detector ray gun is coming tomorrow. So, I'm gonna do my own tests and report back!Go get 'em, WholeFoodsTrad!
Example of invisible plane at high noon.
Actually, the only reason you can see it at all is because of the contrail.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KvzVMZN4frE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NEqk77a-j9AOne of these days I'm gonna have to buy a telescope.
The phases of the moon are best understood thru its shadows.
As happens on earth, shadows are caused at rise and set of the sun, and are nonexistent at zenith (noon).
It's the same with the moon: the sun is at a higher altitude than the moon, and it rises (waxes) over the moon, then it zeniths (full), then it sets (wanes).
The process takes 28 days instead of 12 hours, because the moon os in motion.
It keeps pace with the sun accompanying it across the sky.
This is also why the shadows are relatively short in the craters compared to shadows on earth because the moon is closer to the sun.
Go get 'em, WholeFoodsTrad!I got my ray gun thermometer and I noticed a few interesting things. A very bright LED light puts off no heat at all. It's temperature on or off is virtually the same. An incandescent bulb puts off a lot of heat, but interestingly, a metal shroud shaped like a bowl, sitting over the light, but not touching it, was made much hotter by the light, than the surface of the bulb itself. A simple propane heater produced a flame around 450 degrees, but the metal shroud that surrounded it varied in temperature from around 800 degrees, down to 55 degrees F. What was even more surprising was the temperature of pot of water that had frozen. The Surface of the pot and even the surface of ice was about 60 degrees (about the temp of the room I was in). wOw.
I got my ray gun thermometer and I noticed a few interesting things. A very bright LED light puts off no heat at all. It's temperature on or off is virtually the same. An incandescent bulb puts off a lot of heat, but interestingly, a metal shroud shaped like a bowl, sitting over the light, but not touching it, was made much hotter by the light, than the surface of the bulb itself. A simple propane heater produced a flame around 450 degrees, but the metal shroud that surrounded it varied in temperature from around 800 degrees, down to 55 degrees F. What was even more surprising was the temperature of pot of water that had frozen. The Surface of the pot and even the surface of ice was about 60 degrees (about the temp of the room I was in). wOw.Ha ha! I found all kinds of ways to scratch my science itch with that little ray gun. It is very cool.
.What makes you think the moon's phases should appear different on a flat earth? You don't make any sense.
Why are all the flat-earthers afraid of discussing the moon phases?
.
Everywhere on planet earth the phase of the moon appears the same, every day.
.
Take the full moon, for example. We just had one a few days ago.
.
With the sun on the other side of the world, everyone on the night side sees a full moon.
.
They see the full moon from the time it rises in the evening until it sets in the early morning.
.
All over Asia, from Japan to Portugal, the moon is full all night long.
.
The moment it is rising as seen from Portugal, it is setting as seen from Japan.
.
But it appears as a full moon from both, opposite directions.
.
How could that be the case if the earth were "flat?"
.
The Japanese would see a gibbous moon if the moon were full viewed from Portugal if the earth were "flat."
.
And on a "flat" earth, the Portuguese would see a gibbous moon if it were full while viewed from Japan.
.
What makes you think the moon's phases should appear different on a flat earth? You don't make any sense.Absolutely.
.How could that be the case if the earth were "flat"?
Why are all the flat-earthers afraid of discussing the moon phases?
.
Everywhere on planet earth the phase of the moon appears the same, every day.
.
Take the full moon, for example. We just had one a few days ago.
.
With the sun on the other side of the world, everyone on the night side sees a full moon.
.
They see the full moon from the time it rises in the evening until it sets in the early morning.
.
All over Asia, from Japan to Portugal, the moon is full all night long.
.
The moment it is rising as seen from Portugal, it is setting as seen from Japan.
.
But it appears as a full moon from both, opposite directions.
.
How could that be the case if the earth were "flat?"
.
The Japanese would see a gibbous moon if the moon were full viewed from Portugal if the earth were "flat."
.
And on a "flat" earth, the Portuguese would see a gibbous moon if it were full while viewed from Japan.
.
What makes you think the moon's phases should appear different on a flat earth? You don't make any sense.I wish we had some good illustrations of this stuff. I think the fact of The Moon glowing at night and not during the day causes a problem with reflective light theory and advances the self illuminating moon theory. And, I'm still not satisfied with the Moolight loses its heat, due to distance theory. How much heat does a radiant heat source lose on reflection? Furthermore, I'm not sure the flat map works with a reflecting Sun, given the position of the sun, moon and earth on a typical flat map.
What makes you think the moon's phases should appear different on a flat earth? You don't make any sense..
I wish we had some good illustrations of this stuff..
How could that be the case if the earth were "flat"?.
Well, when we have a true map, we'll let you know. In the meantime, there is no curve.
.The moon is a ball, not earth.
Please provide a picture showing how the full moon appears as such from all parts of the "flat" earth.
.
Maybe your problem is you can't understand why the moon has phases in the first place.
.
The moon is a ball, not earth.In the link I posted you can also see the timelapse of the mirror image reversal of the shadow taken from the southern hemisphere.
Hence, the shadow on the moon caused by the sun looks the same from all points and is mirror-imaged in the south.
THere are many pictures illustrating this.
In the Wiki entry, you can see a timelapse of the sun rising and setting over the moon, causing the shadow to pass from left to right as I previously described.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase
In the link I posted you can also see the timelapse of the mirror image reversal of the shadow taken from the southern hemisphere.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxhxL1LzKww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxhxL1LzKwwFunny your silly vsauce video actually confirms two flat earth claims:
He ends with "We're an ignorable emptiness that no one knows we're here."
There you have it: the end result of ball earth and heliocentrism is nihilism.
Good job, Neil! Way to lead people to the faith. Keep promoting those satanic errors of yours and Jaynek's.
Well said.Oh yeah, what do they need God for, they already know "everything" and of course, their everything tells them there is no god/he's nuts.
What also strikes me about that video is that the narrator is so absolutely sure about his little and big scientific details. These guys believe that science has it all figured out, down to the last atomic detail. It's like a religion to them.
Funny your silly vsauce video actually confirms two flat earth claims:.
1. That the ISS is not very high up.
2. That the windows of the ISS distort the astronauts view and show too much curvature.
He ends with "We're an ignorable emptiness that no one knows we're here.".
There you have it: the end result of ball earth and heliocentrism is nihilism.
Good job, Neil! Way to lead people to the faith. Keep promoting those satanic errors of yours and Jaynek's.
Oh yeah, what do they need God for, they already know "everything" and of course, their everything tells them there is no god/he's nuts..
In the link I posted you can also see the timelapse of the mirror image reversal of the shadow taken from the southern hemisphere..
.How persistently dumb can you be! You are willfully ignorant.
Thank you for pointing out this video's flaws. I agree, it is concluded in a very damaging way for science when viewed from the point of faith.
.
So try to imagine how much damage you're doing to the faith of Catholics when you say the Bible teaches the earth is "flat" (which it doesn't).
.
You're doing the same kind of disservice to religion that this "vsauce" dude is doing to science by way of his CONCLUSIONS.
.
.The "sphericity" is not obvious nor is it demonstrated anywhere, scientifically or otherwise.
Congratulations for skipping to the end.
.
Now go back and watch the whole thing.
.
This guy's conclusions are unwarranted where he tries to sum it all up, but the demonstrations he provides of the scale of the earth and the view of the ISS is very informative. I don't like his STYLE (he speaks rather effeminately) and I don't agree with his conclusions at the end. But the points he makes along the way are quite valid ----- until the last minute or two.
.
It's a nice brief tour of how modern atheists have abused the facts and findings of modern science.
.
But they wouldn't have such an open season on truth if it were not for the inanity of flat-earthers, for example.
.
Flat-earthism is so obviously nuts, it's a shame that's being tied to Scripture, because it brings disrepute to God's word.
.
The Bible does not say the earth is "flat" anywhere. And your insistence on that lie is quite dangerous in our time when the sphericity of the globe is obvious and widely observable without any fancy equipment.
.
.The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
Thank you for pointing out this video's flaws. I agree, it is concluded in a very damaging way for science when viewed from the point of faith.
.
So try to imagine how much damage you're doing to the faith of Catholics when you say the Bible teaches the earth is "flat" (which it doesn't).
.
You're doing the same kind of disservice to religion that this "vsauce" dude is doing to science by way of his CONCLUSIONS.
.
How persistently dumb can you be! You are willfully ignorant..
Any decent and honest scholar of Ancient Literature will affirm, that The Bible does indeed depict a Stationary and Flat Earth.
The "sphericity" is not obvious nor is it demonstrated anywhere,.
scientifically or otherwise..
There is no curvature observed anywhere, not visually and not mathematically and not measurably..
None.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos..
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxhxL1LzKww.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxhxL1LzKww.
.Who?
Why do you insist on pejoratives every time your false hypothesis of flat-earthism is shown for its errors?
.
Any decent and honest scholar of ancient literature (not a proper noun) will affirm the Bible does not depict a "flat" earth (not a proper noun).
.
Who?
How persistently dumb can you be! You are willfully ignorant..
Any decent and honest scholar of Ancient Literature will affirm, that The Bible does indeed depict a Stationary and Flat Earth.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos..
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos..
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
.
I was quoting text from your own buddy's website, but you missed that altogether.
.
Post (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/catholic-intro-video-to-flat-earth/msg569088/#msg569088)
Quote from: Truth is TransitoryQuoteThe horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
.
Wrong. As usual.
.
The horizon does not appear perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer, made clear by the word "around" since the view is a circular one, not a flat one. And the higher the viewer rises the larger the view, which describes the outlook from the top of a great sphere, not a plane.
.
QuoteQuoteThe horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
.
Wrong, again. So what else is new?
.
The horizon does not "rise" anywhere. The horizon stays right where it is. When you look at things, whatever they are, they don't move by the fact of you looking at them. You're confusing your own subjective movement with the the object seen. The horizon isn't rising, but your view is lowering, as you cast your eyes down toward the horizon.
.
Nor would you ever know that's happening because you are not using any instrument to check the level of your line of sight.
.
QuoteQuoteThe natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
.
And again, you're wrong.
.
You keep posting this nonsense about the "natural physics of water" without any reference or authority. What is your source? Have you conducted experiments to test your hypothesis? Whose definition of water or physics are you using?
.
Water, like any fluid, seeks to conform to the confines of its container. The bottom of a lake is shaped like the ground it covers, which becomes seen when the lake dries up. The perimeter of a lake is measured manually on a map by the use of a planimeter (see illustration), a simple (yet complex) device that incorporates the calculus integral continuously to measure the area bounded by the confines of an irregular closed area, like the plan view of a lake's shoreline. This is how technicians of old estimated the volume of water in a lake with changing elevation.
.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpersweb.wabash.edu%2Ffacstaff%2Ffooter%2FPlanimeter%2FPictures%2Famsler.jpg&sp=23c15eba3442c6468e8b552fecb76759) a planimeter in use on a map of a lake
.
Still learning how to click on the title of a post link, eh?Are you kidding? You seem to have nothing to back up your argument, except that you don't like Flat Earth. That seems biased or even bigoted to me.
.
It reads like this:
.
.
Why do you insist on pejoratives every time your false hypothesis of flat-earthism is shown for its errors?
.
Any decent and honest scholar of ancient literature (not a proper noun) will affirm the Bible does not depict a "flat" earth (not a proper noun).
.
Enoch says the moon receives 1/7 of its light from the sun. So, some of the moon's light comes from the sun, but most of it is of the moon itself. My personal experiments with moonlight show is not cold because of the surrounding air, but it is cold by itself. I've tested it on warm nights, hot nights, cold nights, and the moon consistently shines down a temperature near zero degrees. Also, moonlight is different than sunlight in other ways, so it can't be the same light.
Are you kidding? You seem to have nothing to back up your argument, except that you don't like Flat Earth. That seems biased or even bigoted to me..
Your opinion seems to be based on nothing more than emotion and prejudice. Are you just scared of Flat Earth? It seems like it. That's kind of pathetic, for a Catholic to be threatened by Flat Earth, especially to such a degree that you are compelled to spend hours and hours spamming and even harrassing Catholics who just want to share what they've learned about it..
.
Your opinion seems to be based on nothing more than emotion and prejudice. Are you just scared of Flat Earth? It seems like it. That's kind of pathetic, for a Catholic to be threatened by Flat Earth, especially to such a degree that you are compelled to spend hours and hours spamming and even harrassing Catholics who just want to share what they've learned about it.
.I don't think you are sincere.
Nothing to back up my argument, you say? You must not have read my posts.
.
Or else your refusal to answer my questions or to make the observations I have introduced carries over to you impudence.
.
What I don't like is the obvious falsity of flat-earthism, the proofs against which are all around us.
..
What do you know about my motives? Actually, if you had read what I wrote you would know, so you must not have read it.
.
Or, if you have read it, then it is your motives that are up for criticism, not mine.
.
Because you certainly seem to be very afraid of the truth, the truth of the sphericity of Earth.
.
It would be great if you would stop harassing (note proper spelling) me. Consider that a polite invitation.
.
And it would be great if you could provide any reasonable answer to the numerous questions flat-earthers can't answer so far.
.
.Sir. You say 'there is curvature in all these ways'! Yet, reality proves you wrong. Construction over the centuries and the orders to build across long stretches of continents prove curvature was never factored in. To the point that engineers complained to their authorities, "Hey! If there's a curve, we have to comply with that." To which they were repeated told, over and over again, "Build on the level only."
Wrong. The sphericity of the globe earth is obvious for anyone with eyes to see and a mind to think.
.
It is demonstrated everywhere you look, as I have posted many times but you must have not paid attention.
..
Yes, scientifically. Maybe you don't know what scientifically means. Perhaps you should look it up sometime.
.
Try "the Scientific Method" for starters.
..
Wrong again. There is curvature in every direction, all the time, day and night, 4 seasons, in every kind of weather.
.
There is curvature visually, mathematically and measurably. No question about it.
.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos..
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
.This post is spam.
There never has been and there never will be any depiction of a Theodolite shooting a level line of sight from a promontory of even a few hundred feet toward the horizon which shows the horizon "rising to the level of the viewer" as flat-earthers keep chanting without any evidence.
.
There never has been and there never will be an intelligible explanation for why the full moon faces with its sun-illuminated face toward the earth from high in the sky, from the flat-earth hypothesis which places the sun above a "flat" disc earth at nearly 90 degrees to the line of the moon's light as viewed from anywhere on planet earth.
.
There never has been and there never will be any "flat" earth plausible geometry describing how a quarter moon makes the angle it does to the sun (while insisting it and the moon are some 3 thousand miles above the earth) twice each month for all to see.
.
There never has been and there never will be any reasonable excuse for the fact that a ship or plane traveling due east (or due west) along the equator does not have to turn right (starboard) or left (port) in order to remain on the equator and due east (or west as the case may be).
.
There never has been and there never will be any "flat" earth demonstration of WHY two parallel courses once embarked will in due time collide with each other on the real earth, since they don't do that on the "flat" earth model.
.
There never has been and there never will be any reasonable "flat" earth explanation for how any weighted object in a vacuum will consistently be pulled in a perpendicular direction from the horizon line regardless of where on the real earth the experiment is conducted.
.
There never has been and there never will be an explanation for the numerous flights of aircraft that pass over or close to Antarctica and traverse a distance too short to be plotted on a "flat" earth model, when many pilots, co-pilots and navigators who routinely fly such courses have and will continue to attest.
.
There never has been and there never will be any honest video showing the horizon unable to conceal distant objects beyond the curvature of the earth, even while the refraction of light through the water vapor above a body of water makes it appear otherwise, since the progressive foreshortening of such objects belies the distortion caused by the refraction.
.
There never has been and there never will be a seagoing navigator using a sextant and sea charts who can accurately plot his course over a great distance overseas, when he presumes the earth is "flat."
.
I can go on.............
.
How is this spam compared to TiE' s repeated copy and pasting the same paragraphs through multiple threads?Exactly. I don't see how anyone who did not object when TiE did it has a right to object when Neil does it.
Exactly. I don't see how anyone who did not object when TiE did it has a right to object when Neil does it..
For the record, I think it's wrong when globe earthers do it, just like when flat earthers do it.
.Perhaps you are thinking of "three lefts make a right." ;D
But what about "two wrongs don't make a right?" Maybe then three do.
.
Flat Earthers, keep up the awesome work; globe earthers are backed into a corner of their own choosing. :applause: ;D :popcorn:.
Perhaps you are thinking of "three lefts make a right." ;D.
But seriously, we don't need more spamming on this sub-forum. From flat-earthers or globe- earthers.
By the way Neil, the last post in this thread, because you've requested it, is my description for how the phases of the moon work on a flat earth..
.You are endorsing the flat earth God created.
You're going to have to become less cryptic and post exactly what you're trying to say.
.
I don't see anything you posted that describes how the phases of the moon work on your fantasy "flat" earth.
It's interesting that your tests show that moonlight is always at near zero degrees.Yeah, it's weird light. It doesn't seem like Sunlight.
Yes, moonlight seems very different from that of sunlight. If the moon is just reflecting sunlight, then I have to wonder why the light is a pure white hue, rather than yellow in hue, as the sun's light is. I'm not convinced that the moon is emitting its own light, but it doesn't seem quite right that it's reflecting sunlight either.
You are endorsing the flat earth God created.Ha! The only thing he's "endorsing" is his neurotic fear of Flat Earth. I have yet to see Neil make an argument against Flat Earth that he could and would defend.
.I'd like to see some proof and sources for this crap! (I don't think this is original Neil)
Simple answer:
.
All the flat-earthers have to do is address each point in turn. But they won't because they can't.
.
Why can't they?
.
Because:
.
There never has been and there never will be any depiction of a Theodolite shooting a level line of sight from a promontory of even a few hundred feet toward the horizon which shows the horizon "rising to the level of the viewer" as flat-earthers keep chanting without any evidence.
.
There never has been and there never will be an intelligible explanation for why the full moon faces with its sun-illuminated face toward the earth from high in the sky, from the flat-earth hypothesis which places the sun above a "flat" disc earth at nearly 90 degrees to the line of the moon's light as viewed from anywhere on planet earth.
.
There never has been and there never will be any "flat" earth plausible geometry describing how a quarter moon makes the angle it does to the sun (while insisting it and the moon are some 3 thousand miles above the earth) twice each month for all to see.
.
There never has been and there never will be any reasonable excuse for the fact that a ship or plane traveling due east (or due west) along the equator does not have to turn right (starboard) or left (port) in order to remain on the equator and due east (or west as the case may be).
.
There never has been and there never will be any "flat" earth demonstration of WHY two parallel courses once embarked will in due time collide with each other on the real earth, since they don't do that on the "flat" earth model.
.
There never has been and there never will be any reasonable "flat" earth explanation for how any weighted object in a vacuum will consistently be pulled in a perpendicular direction from the horizon line regardless of where on the real earth the experiment is conducted.
.
There never has been and there never will be an explanation for the numerous flights of aircraft that pass over or close to Antarctica and traverse a distance too short to be plotted on a "flat" earth model, when many pilots, co-pilots and navigators who routinely fly such courses have and will continue to attest.
.
There never has been and there never will be any honest video showing the horizon unable to conceal distant objects beyond the curvature of the earth, even while the refraction of light through the water vapor above a body of water makes it appear otherwise, since the progressive foreshortening of such objects belies the distortion caused by the refraction.
.
There never has been and there never will be a seagoing navigator using a sextant and sea charts who can accurately plot his course over a great distance overseas, when he presumes the earth is "flat."
.
I can go on.............
.
I'd like to see some proof and sources for this crap! (I don't think this is original Neil).
.How about a link to your source Neil?
There is plenty more where that came from.
.
Funny nobody who supports flat-earthism has any argument or substantive response -- just frustration.
.
It's okay to be frustrated! Being a flat-earther means living with self-contradiction day in and day out.
.
You must enjoy frustration, though. That part doesn't add up.
.
How about a link to your source Neil?.
.That's a cool link Neil, but what's the source for your anti-flat earth arguments? You seem to be pulling them from somewhere. How's about giving it up?
https://www.almanac.com/astronomy/moon/calendar/NY/New%20York/2018-02
https://www.almanac.com/content/full-moon-february
That's a cool link Neil, but what's the source for your anti-flat earth arguments? You seem to be pulling them from somewhere. How's about giving it up?.
.I see. So you don't think that Flat Earth can predict Eclipses. I don't know why you think that, but I think you are misinformed. Flat Earth models can predict Eclipses and have done so for thousands of years.
Here is a very informative video that was made 6 months in advance of the August eclipse last year.
.
All the predicted or expected data that is presented here for over an hour, actually did take place as expected.
.
And flat-earthers continue to accuse such presentations as being contrived or unbelievable.
.
In the face of such detailed information in advance of the eclipse, how can someone be so incredulous?
.
For flat-earthers, the only thing they're consistent about is their denial of information that conflicts with their fantasy.
.
There is no logical reason to doubt the evidence, so it must be all based on emotion.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmM1MjOZGL8
.
The eclipse of August, 2017 is described starting at minute 37.
I see. So you don't think that Flat Earth can predict Eclipses. I don't know why you think that, but I think you are misinformed. Flat Earth models can predict Eclipses and have done so for thousands of years.I got 30 seconds in and he had already said something that so completely destroyed his credibility there was no point continuing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raO9RS3b8-A
Total Eclipse of the Mind, by Eric Dubay
Now, that also the earth taken as a whole is sensibly spherical, we could most likely think out in this way. For again it is possible to see that the sun and moon and the other stars do not rise and set at the same time for every observer on the earth, but always earlier for those living towards the orient and later for those living towards the occident. For we find that the phenomena of eclipses taking place at the same time, especially those of the moon, are not recorded at the same hours for everyone that is, relatively to equal intervals of time from noon; but we always find later hours recorded for observers towards the orient than for those towards the occident. And since the differences in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances between the places, one would reasonably suppose the surface of the earth spherical, with the result that the general uniformity of curvature would assure every part's covering those following it proportionately. But this would not happen if the figure were any other, as can be seen from the following considerations.https://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Cosmology/Ptolemy.html#4 (https://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Cosmology/Ptolemy.html#4)
For, if it were concave, the rising stars would appear first to people towards the occident; and if it were flat, the stars would rise and set for all people together and at the same time; and if it were a pyramid, a cube, or any other polygonal figure, they would again appear at the same time for all observers on the same straight line. But none of these things appears to happen. It is further clear that it could not be cylindrical with the curved surface turned to the risings and settings and the plane bases to the poles of the universe, which some think more plausible. For then never would any of the stars be always visible to any of the inhabitants of the curved surface, but either all the stars would both rise and set for observers or the same stars for an equal distance from either of the poles would always be invisible to all observers. Yet the more we advance towards the north pole, the more the southern stars are hidden and the northern stars appear. So it is clear that here the curvature of the earth covering parts uniformly in oblique directions proves its spherical form on every side. Again, whenever we sail towards mountains or any high places from whatever angle and in whatever direction, we see their bulk little by little increasing as if they were arising from the sea, whereas before they seemed submerged because of the curvature of the water's surface.
Ptolemy claims globe earth on page one of the Almagest, but he offers no PROOF.Ptolemy very clearly taught that the earth is a sphere, the central one in a series of concentric spheres which moved the stars, moon, planets, and sun. The Amagest includes his proof of the spherical earth
So I was curious about who this Eric Dubay is that was being used as an authority to support flat earth so I went to his website to see what he had to say.Nobody cares, Garrison.
I was appalled. This man is clearly some sort of New Age neo-pagan. He promotes recreational drugs, reincarnation, etc. I had to stop reading when I came across an article on the Eucharist. It was so blasphemous and sickening that I cannot bear to repeat what he said. It is not very surprising that he flat out lied (pun intended) about the Ptolemaic model.
Flat-earthers here have been repeatedly trying to discredit the spherical earth by associating with pagans and secular humanists. It would be highly inconsistent to use Eric Dubay as an authority, even if he weren't a total liar.
I got 30 seconds in and he had already said something that so completely destroyed his credibility there was no point continuing.You should watch the entire video.
He started of by claiming that Copernicus introduced the ball earth and that Ptolemy's model (which did in fact predict eclipses and moon phases) was a flat earth model. He uses this absolute falsehood to counter the position that there are no flat earth models that can predict eclipses, etc.
Ptolemy very clearly taught that the earth is a sphere, the central one in a series of concentric spheres which moved the stars, moon, planets, and sun. The Amagest includes his proof of the spherical earth:
https://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Cosmology/Ptolemy.html#4 (https://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Cosmology/Ptolemy.html#4)
Ptolemy wrote this in the second century and it became the dominant model in the West, including Christendom throughout the middle ages. It began to be challenged with the introduction of the Copernican model, but the majority of scientists (and the Church) sided with the Ptolemaic until the introduction of Newtonian physics made a heliocentric model more plausible.
An interesting side-note: St. Robert Bellarmine, had an interest in astronomy. Early in his career, in his "Louvain lectures" he challenged the Ptolemaic model with the idea that the heavenly bodies were not moved by spheres but by some other means. (He did not challenge the idea the earth is a sphere, of course.) It is interesting that he is often portrayed as anti-science, when he was in fact at the cutting edge of it.
Anyhow, can anybody produce a genuine flat earth model that predicts eclipses?
We’ve been predicting eclipses for over 2000 years. Here’s how.The article described ancient peoples who discovered a regular interval between eclipses and used it to predict future eclipses. This is not the same as using a flat earth model to predict eclipses. The predictions are based on timing and are independent of their cosmological model. It is not comparable to the way that Ptolemy's model predicted eclipses.
The article described ancient peoples who discovered a regular interval between eclipses and used it to predict future eclipses. This is not the same as using a flat earth model to predict eclipses. The predictions are based on timing and are independent of their cosmological model. It is not comparable to the way that Ptolemy's model predicted eclipses.The point is that The Chinese, believing in Flat Earth until the 17th Century were able to accurately predict eclipses.
Eric Dubay, while claiming to be an expert in this field, falsely described Ptolemy's model as having a flat earth. He is either an ignorant person lying about his expertise or knew he was lying about the model. He has no credibility after this. There is no reason to watch his videos other than to debunk them.
.Ah, and here we have the philosophy of a globalist.
But what about "two wrongs don't make a right?" Maybe then three do.
.
The point is that The Chinese, believing in Flat Earth until the 17th Century were able to accurately predict eclipses.I said: "can anybody produce a genuine flat earth model that predicts eclipses? " I do not see how that implies what you said.
You implied that you couldn't have a Flat Earth Cosmology and accurately predict eclipses. There is overwhelming proof from Chinese History that that is incorrect. You can accurately predict eclipses with a Flat Earth Cosmology Jayne.
Thanks for pointing out the error with Ptolemy though. And, I already knew Eric Dubay was a Pagan, but then again (like Seven has pointed out) this is science, not necessarily religion.
I think it is o.k. to get help from Pagans and even Fornicators when it comes to things like putting a roof on a house or snaking a drain. Do you Jayne?
I have been saying all along that one ought to determine what is true and what is not in the ideas of pagans and accept what is true. That was the position of St. Augustine which became that of the entire Church.Yeah, o.k., I kinda see what you mean, it's just that Copernicus, for example, was deep into the occult and it appears to have affected his thinking about cosmology. Eric Dubay's thinking, on the other hand, seems to be promoting an Old Testament model of cosmology without apology, while at the same time, his Eastern religious training does seem to affect his views on things like: what causes tides on a flat earth, for example. So, to my mind, there does seem to be a difference of degrees. Although, I get your point and I further agree that someone's religion/lifestyle/politics/culture colors the way they see The World. We are, none of us, entirely objective; we all have our biases and prejudices.
But several flat-earthers have claimed that it is wrong to believe in spherical earth because the idea originated among pagans or because it is currently believed by secular humanists. I have never seen you express disagreement with them.
I was not saying that the fact that a man of such disturbing beliefs as Eric Dubay promotes flat earth proves it is not true. I was saying that flat-earthers need to be consistent on what they say about pagans. Either it is acceptable to sift the beliefs of pagans to find what is true or it is not acceptable. One needs to apply the same standard to pagans who believe in globe earth as those who believe in flat earth.
There are white supremacists who support the President. Who cares? Does that mean you shouldn't support the President?The evil women of the white supremacist kkk fried chicken and watermelon gang :jester:
I said: "can anybody produce a genuine flat earth model that predicts eclipses? " I do not see how that implies what you said.I see. I think you're confused. I don't think the models you are referring to are being used to predict eclipses, so much as they are being used to explain why eclipses occur.
The reason I asked is that being able to make accurate predictions is an important criterion in evaluating a theoretical model. As far as I know there is no flat earth model that can predict eclipses or anything else.
A flat earth model would do far more than assert that the earth is flat. It would give a size for the earth, distance from the sun moon and stars, their size, how much light they emit, etc. It would have all the details filled in such that one could calculate future movements of heavenly bodies. Its success at doing this would be one indicator of its strength as a model. By comparing it against other models, one could determine whether it was as good as they are.
I have not really looked hard since that is not my area of interest, but I have not come across any fleshed out flat earth models that one could evaluate this way. But if there were one, I would have expected it to come up in the discussion by now.
I see. I think you're confused. I don't think the models you are referring to are being used to predict eclipses, so much as they are being used to explain why eclipses occur.These are both factors in evaluating a theoretical model. One looks at explanatory power and predictive power. Starting with the same group of observations, how well does one's model explain all (or most of them)? That's the explanatory power. How accurately does the model predict future events? That's the predictive power. The Ptolemaic model could predict things like eclipses and star positions.
These are both factors in evaluating a theoretical model. One looks at explanatory power and predictive power. Starting with the same group of observations, how well does one's model explain all (or most of them)? That's the explanatory power. How accurately does the model predict future events? That's the predictive power. The Ptolemaic model could predict things like eclipses and star positions.Please listen: Phases and eclipses are figured independently of the shape the of earth. There are working flat earth models that make a lot more sense than the global models when one considers that something is always out of kilter with the globe model because the 4 way movement of earth never lines up in the same position relative to any celestial body. And how could it? With earth moving 67,000 mph around the sun, 500,000 mph through space, another million mph in another big bang trajectory, and spinning 1000 mph, there's no way millions of stars each with their own movements, can re-line up again as they do year after year.
When the Copernican model was first introduced, the dominant model was the Ptolemaic one, so they were in competition with each other. At first, most scientists did not switch over to the Copernican because it was not any better at explaining or predicting. Also the Ptolemaic was more intuitive. From the perspective of scientists, a heliocentric model was not superior until the development of Newtonian physics gave it more explanatory power.
At the time of Galileo, the majority of scientists still preferred geocentric models. The Ptolemaic was still a major contender and Tycho Brahe had introduced his. This is something to keep in mind when one encounters the common misconception that the Church is opposed to science.
Please listen: Phases and eclipses are figured independently of the shape the of earth. There are working flat earth models that make a lot more sense than the global models when one considers that ...Yes we already established there are ways to predict eclipses by their timing without a model, but the Ptolemaic model was used to predict eclipes, among other things. Are there flat earth models that can predict anything?
Yes we already established there are ways to predict eclipses by their timing without a model, but the Ptolemaic model was used to predict eclipes, among other things. Are there flat earth models that can predict anything?The prediction of eclipses is already a working model no one contests. How eclipses work is another matter.
The prediction of eclipses is already a working model no one contests. How eclipses work is another matter.Perhaps you could rephrase that. I cannot understand it.
Perhaps you could rephrase that. I cannot understand it.Yes, the flat earth model predicts phases because its nothing more than a mathematical-by-observation problem. And yes, star positions are also predicted within the flat earth model.
Was it an answer to my question about flat earth models that can predict anything? It does not have to be eclipses. It could be star positions.
Yes, the flat earth model predicts phases because its nothing more than a mathematical-by-observation problem. And yes, star positions are also predicted within the flat earth model.Could you link to a detailed flat earth model that does this?
Could you link to a detailed flat earth model that does this?Its the same as the way all science calculate phases.
Its the same as the way all science calculate phases.Then its not part of the flat earth model.
Then its not part of the flat earth model.You are mistaken again. Still, with regard to models, flat earthers agree on one thing: earth is not a globe.
These are both factors in evaluating a theoretical model. One looks at explanatory power and predictive power. Starting with the same group of observations, how well does one's model explain all (or most of them)? That's the explanatory power. How accurately does the model predict future events? That's the predictive power. The Ptolemaic model could predict things like eclipses and star positions.Yeah, I see what you mean. No Jayne, Flat Earth does not have the equivalent of NASA, Government and Media Promotion and University research behind it, for the past what thousand years in The West at least (i don't know, isn't really a big area of interest to me honestly, but perhaps will be when someone like Robert Sungenis decides to promote a book about it). So, our theoretical models are a little "thin" or maybe downright "anorexic." :laugh1: Moreover, the "models" which have been theorized in the past, with a Flat Earth Cosmology are simply not promoted anymore, so they are hard to find and maybe understand. So, our theorizing is mostly "home grown" and as such, may at times seem to be a little "unsophisticated," "crude" or "amishy" (as in w/out the benefit of much modern technology/funding) :laugh1:
When the Copernican model was first introduced, the dominant model was the Ptolemaic one, so they were in competition with each other. At first, most scientists did not switch over to the Copernican because it was not any better at explaining or predicting. Also the Ptolemaic was more intuitive. From the perspective of scientists, a heliocentric model was not superior until the development of Newtonian physics gave it more explanatory power.
At the time of Galileo, the majority of scientists still preferred geocentric models. The Ptolemaic was still a major contender and Tycho Brahe had introduced his. This is something to keep in mind when one encounters the common misconception that the Church is opposed to science.
Anyway Jayne, I think the Globe Earth Theory for an Eclipse of The Sun is that the Massive Stationary Sun is eclipsed by the Earth orbiting Moon, which passes between The Sun and Tiny Sun orbiting Earth..
On The Flat Earth, My Theory and I think it may be the general thinking (I really don't know) is that the Stationary Earth is orbited by a relatively small Sun and Moon, that every so often block our view of one of them. Although, some people think there is a third "dark" object that causes that.
Wondering how that might look, I took a flashlight and a coaster into a dark room. I held the flashlight pointing towards me on low beam, at full arm's length and held the coaster at the joint (elbow), with my other hand, blocking the flashlight 1/2 from my field of view, when held directly in front of me. I then swung my arm to the right and left, trying to crudely simulate the difference in "eclipse" that I would experience, if I kept my head facing forward and followed the flashlight with my eyes and not my head. I found that the flashlight was "eclipsed" by the coaster anywhere from 100% to 0%, depending on the position of my arm. That is what I expected to find.
So, I would expect that Eclipses of The Sun would look different, from various locations on Earth, when viewed at exactly the same time, with the observer facing directly into The Sun. However, it also seems to me that the observers angle of view would be different, depending on their location on Earth at the time of a particular eclipse. So, that might actually compensate, to one degree or another, for the different locations of the viewers. So, in that case, I'm not sure what to expect; they may see the same thing or they may not.
In any case, having been a Flat Earth'er for a while, it occurs to me that our belief that we have to know "everything" is based on a false view of Science. All we really need to do is observe, enjoy and submit to The Order that God has Created.
What's amazing though is that The Chinese have been Flat Earther's for thousands of years!!!!.