Flat Earth Flat Moon

[SkyWriting]

All of that is nice but in the OP there actually some pictures showing the curvature of the moon. Did you miss those?

Let's get real with our pictures, my friend.
As I said.....it has always looked flat to me.
And don't forget that it glows in the night.
Not many balls in our world, glow in the night.

 

[crjmurray]

Let's get real with our pictures, my friend.
As I said.....it has always looked flat to me.
And don't forget that it glows in the night.
Not many balls in our world, glow in the night.

Sounds like you've been hitting the shine. Time for bed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sub, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these pictures show the spherical shape of the moon. On the right side where there is less light reflection you can clearly see certain features bent as if they are on a sphere. You can see the profiles of impact craters. Apparently me and one other poster are the only ones who have seen it.

It looks spherical to me. And I know that I can't see it with my naked eye, but with a telescope one can observe a marked libration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

In other words the tidal lock of the Moon is not perfect and you can see a bit more than half of it as it wobbles during its monthly orbit.

Here is a simulation of libration, there is no question of the Moon's shape:

"Lunar libration with phase Oct 2007 450px" by Tomruen - Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif

 

[Davian]

First of all, a photograph is two-dimensional.

I can photograph the globe in the corner of my room all I want, and it's not going to look like a sphere.

Second of all, I agree with you that the moon has curvature -- the same way a pancake has curvature.

And just because something has curvature, doesn't mean it can't be flatter than a pancake.

(I see SZ beat me to it)

If the moon were as flat as a pancake, we would not observe libration:

"Libration is manifested as a slow rocking back and forth of the Moon as viewed from Earth, permitting an observer to see slightly different halves of the surface at different times.

There are three types of lunar libration:

• Libration in longitude results from the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit around Earth; the Moon's rotation sometimes leads and sometimes lags its orbital position.
• Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination between the Moon's axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earth's revolution about the Sun.
• Diurnal libration is a small daily oscillation due to the Earth's rotation, which carries an observer first to one side and then to the other side of the straight line joining Earth's and the Moon's centers, allowing the observer to look first around one side of the Moon and then around the other—because the observer is on the surface of the Earth, not at its centre."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

 

[Oafman]

Achieving a stable orbit around a pancake moon would be a challenge. Or are we denying that we have ever done that?

 

[AV1611VET]

No need. This is photographic evidence showing the curvature of the moon. If you can't see it, then there's no need for a continued discussion. Thanks.

You may as well make it a drawing.

Two-dimensional is two-dimensional.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the moon were as flat as a pancake, we would not observe libration:

It seems to me that if libration was so convincing, then the OP would have used that, instead of photographs of some round object, then claim the curves seen in the object are evidence that the object is a sphere.

To address your point, it seems to me that librations are merely a change in the moon's size, not its topography.

If I cut a circle out of a piece of cardboard, then placed it on the table and wiggled the table as I photographed the circle, wouldn't the circle appear larger?

 

[AV1611VET]

Achieving a stable orbit around a pancake moon would be a challenge. Or are we denying that we have ever done that?

We started out with three simple photographs in an OP.

Now that I'm trying to answer the question put forth in it, we're starting to have more and more things added to it.

Librations, and now orbits, and later, who knows what?

This baroque style of discussion, called feature creep, is like playing a game in which the victor won because he added rules to it as the game progressed.

Next, I'll bet someone will bring up that we actually went there and didn't fall off the edge.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the right side where there is less light reflection you can clearly see certain features bent as if they are on a sphere.

Do they bend all the way around?

Or do they just bend down slightly, like a bottle cap?

I would say that, at best, your point shows the moon to be shaped like a bottle cap.

But I'm sure, since [planetary] evolution runs on connect-the-dots, flat mooners are expected to fill in the rest of the picture in their minds ... aren't they?

Only on paper.

 

[Oafman]

We started out with three simple photographs in an OP.

Now that I'm trying to answer the question put forth in it, we're starting to have more and more things added to it.

Librations, and now orbits, and later, who knows what?

This baroque style of discussion, called feature creep, is like playing a game in which the victor won because he added rules to it as the game progressed.

Next, I'll bet someone will bring up that we actually went there and didn't fall off the edge.

I'm fairly sure the OP did not suggest that these pictures are the only evidence we have that the moon exists in three dimensions, or that we should restrict our discussion to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm fairly sure the OP did not suggest that these pictures are the only evidence we have that the moon exists in three dimensions,

Um ... they aren't any evidence that the moon exists in three dimensions.

Unless, as I said, you want to discuss the moon being some kind of bottle cap shape.

 

[Oafman]

Um ... they aren't any evidence that the moon exists in three dimensions.

Unless, as I said, you want to discuss the moon being some kind of bottle cap shape.

No, they are strong evidence that the Moon is spherical.

Look at the ray system emanating from the large impact crater towards the bottom right. See how these straight lines of ejecta appear curved? That's because they are straight lines - as viewed from above - on a spherical object.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they are strong evidence that the Moon is spherical.

Look at the ray system emanating from the large impact crater towards the bottom right. See how these straight lines of ejecta appear curved? That's because they are straight lines - as viewed from above - on a spherical object.

Hmmm

You just might have something here!

 

[Shemjaza]

What's going on?

Sure SkyWriting and AV may take issue with cosmology and evolution... but neither of them are flat eathers (flat mooners?).

I'm just confused.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's going on?

Sure SkyWriting and AV may take issue with cosmology and evolution... but neither of them are flat eathers (flat mooners?).

I'm just confused.

I was trying to show the OP that, if he wants someone to make a drastic change in his beliefs, he's going to need more than just a photograph.

Some people have strong beliefs, but I think others think they are willing to change those beliefs overnight with just a smidgen of evidence to the contrary.

That's why I think scientists like to use the Catholic church as a punching bag for religions that didn't accept heliocentrism overnight.

HOWEVER, Oafman's post took the wind out of my sails.

 

[crjmurray]

I was trying to show the OP that, if he wants someone to make a drastic change in his beliefs, he's going to need more than just a photograph.

Some people have strong beliefs, but I think others think they are willing to change those beliefs overnight with just a smidgen of evidence to the contrary.

That's why I think scientists like to use the Catholic church as a punching bag for religions that didn't accept heliocentrism overnight.

HOWEVER, Oafman's post took the wind out of my sails.

If you had actually examined the pictures before posting then you would have never set sail in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you had actually examined the pictures before posting then you would have never set sail in the first place.

Sorry ... I don't think like a scientist.

I could have stared at that picture all day like I was on LSD or something and still not seen it.

 

[Davian]

It seems to me that if libration was so convincing, then the OP would have used that, instead of photographs of some round object, then claim the curves seen in the object are evidence that the object is a sphere.

To address your point, it seems to me that librations are merely a change in the moon's size, not its topography.

If I cut a circle out of a piece of cardboard, then placed it on the table and wiggled the table as I photographed the circle, wouldn't the circle appear larger?

Do you believe that the Earth rotates in relation to the moon?

 

[The Cadet]

Wait, AV is a flat earther?

Man, my decision to block him is sounding more and more reasonable by the minute.

 

[Davian]

Wait, AV is a flat earther?

Man, my decision to block him is sounding more and more reasonable by the minute.

I joined this site in part because of AV. At the time I thought there might be something to all this religious stuff. He assures me that there isn't.