Is the Earth Flat?

[prodromos]

IMO, we regulary hear that "Refraction" is the excuse for the fact that we see way to far... past the curve of the earth.. in all kinds of weather conditions.

Refraction needs certain atmospheric conditions in order to produce the effect that happens from time to time.

It always happens because the atmosphere has a pressure gradient, it is more dense towards the earth's surface and less dense as you gain elevation. Certain weather conditions can make the effect more pronounced which is why some days you can see further than others.

In my opinion.. if you can see a fully risen sun... for whaterver reason.. then.. the moon could see it too.. and the light, that would be being refracted... would illumintate the moon.

That is a valid point, but the light between the sun and the moon is attenuated by the atmosphere twice as much as seen by an observer on earth. It is why we can get a blood moon during a solar eclipse. Light from the sun is still reaching the moon despite the earth's shadow completely blocking it, but the lower frequency light waves are bent through the atmosphere and are able to illuminate the moon.

 

[prodromos]

That is the game of science, offer up clever excuses for their lack of producing a to scale working model.

You guys can't even produce a flat earth model that has correct distances between all the cities on the various continents, but since you think it is all just clever excuses, the following has no excuses at all.

 

[prodromos]

I watched, and chuckled, as NASA tried to explain the direction of the shadow across the earth too....I can't find the video now. They must have taken it down. It got hammered so badly.

When given real questions, they have to really dig in and make some crazy excuses.

Well, I found it... Enjoy.. I love the hands overhead pirouette the best...

So, it wasn't anyone connected with NASA until the end of the video, so that's your first untruth, and the second untruth is that NASA had to make some crazy excuse. There is nothing wrong with their explanation.

 

[JacksBratt]

Agreed. The diagrams merely show the general idea, and are always completely wrong, as far as being accurately scaled. And as a result, can be misleading.

It's very easy to resolve. Take a piece of paper, an pencil, and a ruler. And draw to scale the earth, moon, and sun. You don't have to agree with the figures the 'official' sizes and distances. Just do it.

The problem is if you draw the moon, say, 1mm in diameter, and the earth 3.7mm diameter, at 110mm, this will be too small to show anything useful. But you still need to add the sun, at just over 42m (not mm) away.

This is why people use maths to make calculations, and to accurately describe what happens. No drawings or diagrams can be to scale. They can only describe the general principals.

I agree that the sun is much farther away than any diagram.. However, they forget to scale it's size way way down so that the observer, from the earth, would see the sun completely blocked by the moon...

They make the sun huge so that they can show an umbra... on the diagram.

The diagram should show absolutely no light rays passing by the outside of the moon.. as it is in real life.

 

[JacksBratt]

As @HantsUK posted above, if everything was drawn to scale, either the earth and moon would be too tiny to discern any useful detail, or the size and distance of the sun would simply not be practical. That is why you simply do the calculations with basic trigonometry and see what the results are. I've done this myself just to confirm and it all works.. I'm going to have to do it again and put together a nice, simple diagram to post here in the not too distant future, though I doubt it will change your attitude.

My argument with the diagram is that the sun is too large, when viewed from the earth... I'm not repeating my other post here.

Once again you fail to answer why your moon ceases to be a light source when it is blocking the sun. Neither you nor @d taylor have made any attempt to answer this.

My argument was never about the moon giving light at this time. It's about the size of the shadow on the earth. Which should be larger than the moon.. for reasons that I have mentioned earlier.

The moon never shows light when the the sun is behind it or in the sky...

The sun and the moon are not the same size.

OK?

If someone 1.8m tall is standing 20m away from you and you hold out your thumb 50cm from your face it completely blockes them from your view.

Exactly.....

Your thumb is only 5-6cm long, so how does it block something that is much larger? That same thumb can block a skyscraper that is hundreds of metres tall if it is far enough away.

Now you got it.....

So.. why does the diagram show a different idea?

 

[JacksBratt]

I know what would happen. The oceans would freeze. How does that stop what you claimed about water being the only substance less dense as a solid?

Or all the other well known aspects of reality that seem to baffle you?

It is the only other element that is in any way a grand motivator in life on our planet.

If you look at the post that I was commenting on.. .it was in regards to someone stating

"Well all the planets are round... the earth must be"

Which is terrible logic if you were trying to prove such a thing.. I would never gamble or risk anything on logic like that..
So.. I listed things in life that don't agree with the "All of these are blue.. so this one must be blue"

Capisce?

 

[JacksBratt]

So, it wasn't anyone connected with NASA until the end of the video, so that's your first untruth, and the second untruth is that NASA had to make some crazy excuse. There is nothing wrong with their explanation.

Your right... my memory is bad... But.. it's still a person of science from the washington post making a fool of herself trying to explain something so simple.

 

[Leaviathan]

It's round, because Sybok says so.

 

[prodromos]

I agree that the sun is much farther away than any diagram.. However, they forget to scale it's size way way down so that the observer, from the earth, would see the sun completely blocked by the moon...

They make the sun huge so that they can show an umbra... on the diagram.

The diagram should show absolutely no light rays passing by the outside of the moon.. as it is in real life.

Do the math. When I did the calculations with the dimensions and distances available, I initially ended up with no umbra shadow reaching the earth from the moon because the cone formed by the diameter of the sun and the moon came to a point just short of the earth's surface. I then realised that the distances were from the centre of the earth and I had not taken into account the radius of the earth, but the fact of the matter is that the moon just barely produces a shadow on the earth and the shadow, the area on the earth's surface where an eclipse is visible, is much smaller than the moon's diameter.
Do the calculations yourself and stop posting nonsense out of ignorance.

 

[prodromos]

My argument with the diagram is that the sun is too large, when viewed from the earth...

The sun has a diameter of 1.4 million km and the moon has a diameter of 3474 km, while the distance from earth to the sun is 150.74 million km and 384400 km to the moon. This means that while the sun is appoximately 400 times larger than the moon, it is also approximately 400 time more distant than the moon during an eclipse. This just happens to make the sun and moon appear almost exactly the same size from earth.

My argument was never about the moon giving light at this time. It's about the size of the shadow on the earth. Which should be larger than the moon.. for reasons that I have mentioned earlier.

And as I have demonstrated, your reasoning is false.

The moon never shows light when the the sun is behind it or in the sky...

Why does that happen? Don't tell me you are not in agreement with @d taylor ?!

Now you got it.....

I never didn't "get it"

So.. why does the diagram show a different idea?

It doesn't. Work it out for yourself using the figures above.

 

[prodromos]

Your right... my memory is bad... But.. it's still a person of science from the washington post making a fool of herself trying to explain something so simple.

I agree, it was a stupid video.

 

[JacksBratt]

Do the math. When I did the calculations with the dimensions and distances available, I initially ended up with no umbra shadow reaching the earth from the moon because the cone formed by the diameter of the sun and the moon came to a point just short of the earth's surface. I then realised that the distances were from the centre of the earth and I had not taken into account the radius of the earth, but the fact of the matter is that the moon just barely produces a shadow on the earth and the shadow, the area on the earth's surface where an eclipse is visible, is much smaller than the moon's diameter.
Do the calculations yourself and stop posting nonsense out of ignorance.

You can talk about math all you want. However, you cannot deny that when the moon passes in front of the sun..
1/ They are, for all intents and purposes.. the same size in the sky.
2/ The moon creates a shadow.

Also.. I do not need math to know that an object cannot cast a shadow that is smaller than itself. Especially when the object and the light source, when viewed from the surface the shadow is cast onto.. are the same size and the entire light source is covered.

In order for the excuses that are generally used in these types of diagrams to be used... the light source would have to be much larger than the object in it's path.... when viewed from the surface the shadow is projected onto.

For example holding a marble in front of a flashlight... where a large amount of the light, from the source, is still observed from the surface the shadow is projected onto as it passes by the object unobstructed.

This is not the case. The sun is completely blocked by the moon... the distance and size of the sun are irrelevant. This would create a shadow larger than the moon.

If the moon only blocked 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/8 of the sun... that would be a different story. There would then be loads of light passing by the moon giving a vague shadow.

This.......... is not the case.

 

[prodromos]

You can talk about math all you want. However, you cannot deny that when the moon passes in front of the sun..
1/ They are, for all intents and purposes.. the same size in the sky.
2/ The moon creates a shadow.

Also.. I do not need math to know that an object cannot cast a shadow that is smaller than itself. Especially when the object and the light source, when viewed from the surface the shadow is cast onto.. are the same size and the entire light source is covered.

In order for the excuses that are generally used in these types of diagrams to be used... the light source would have to be much larger than the object in it's path.... when viewed from the surface the shadow is projected onto.

For example holding a marble in front of a flashlight... where a large amount of the light, from the source, is still observed from the surface the shadow is projected onto as it passes by the object unobstructed.

This is not the case. The sun is completely blocked by the moon... the distance and size of the sun are irrelevant. This would create a shadow larger than the moon.

If the moon only blocked 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/8 of the sun... that would be a different story. There would then be loads of light passing by the moon giving a vague shadow.

This.......... is not the case.

Simply repeating what you've already stated does not magically make it right.
Using the example of your thumb blocking out the view of a distant skyscraper, if you draw imaginary lines from the top and bottom of the skyscraper to the top and bottom of your thumb (holding your thumb sideways in front of your eye) you will not get parallel lines, the lines will converge to a point just behind your eyes. If you move your thumb back towards the skyscraper such that it no longer completely blocks it from view, the lines have converged to a point in front of your eye.
This corresponds to the shadow cast by the moon. If the moon was just a little further from the earth such that it didn't completely block the sun then there would be no umbra shadow, only penumbra, as light from the extremeties of the sun is able to reach the earth. If the moon were to move closer to the earth then at some point the umbra would reach the earth and form a small dark shadow. As it moved closee to the earth the size of the shadow would increase until it is the same size as the moon only when the moon is touching the earth.
Since you reject mathematics, hooefully the above will be clear to you.

 

[d taylor]

You guys can't even produce a flat earth model that has correct distances between all the cities on the various continents, but since you think it is all just clever excuses, the following has no excuses at all.

And also contains no truth.

 

[adrianawakened505]

Do you believe the Earth is flat? If so, to what degree do you believe the Earth is flat?

Oh course it's flat , you would have to be indoctrinated not to see that. Oh yea dah, everyone who doesn't see it is indoctrinated because the facts are there you just have to look

 

[JacksBratt]

Simply repeating what you've already stated does not magically make it right.
Using the example of your thumb blocking out the view of a distant skyscraper, if you draw imaginary lines from the top and bottom of the skyscraper to the top and bottom of your thumb (holding your thumb sideways in front of your eye) you will not get parallel lines, the lines will converge to a point just behind your eyes.

True.

If you move your thumb back towards the skyscraper such that it no longer completely blocks it from view, the lines have converged to a point in front of your eye.

True.

This corresponds to the shadow cast by the moon. If the moon was just a little further from the earth such that it didn't completely block the sun then there would be no umbra shadow, only penumbra, as light from the extremeties of the sun is able to reach the earth. If the moon were to move closer to the earth then at some point the umbra would reach the earth and form a small dark shadow. As it moved closee to the earth the size of the shadow would increase until it is the same size as the moon only when the moon is touching the earth.
Since you reject mathematics, hooefully the above will be clear to you.

Both the points that you made, that I agreed to be true... Only prove that if the skyscraper, and my thumb, were arranged in such a way that I could not see the skyscraper... as is the case with the sun and the moon...

So, there is no rays of sunlight going past the moon to create the affect the you need for the moon shadow to be smaller than the moon.

You don't need math to show that.

Anyway... Don't you think that this horse is dead?

 

[prodromos]

And also contains no truth.

Your response is nothing more than a description of your response. You claim that science makes excuses for not providing a scale model, then when an example is given where science does produce a scale model you refuse to admit that. Your arguments are empty and hollow.

 

[prodromos]

So, there is no rays of sunlight going past the moon to create the affect the you need for the moon shadow to be smaller than the moon

Yes there are. Every point on the surface of the sun emits light in every direction.

 

[d taylor]

Your response is nothing more than a description of your response. You claim that science makes excuses for not providing a scale model, then when an example is given where science does produce a scale model you refuse to admit that. Your arguments are empty and hollow.

Science can make a model of their variation of the creation that God created. Never said they can not (as for it working like they say, is another subject) make a model of their big bang creation version.

What i have said is that is not the creation described in The Bible in Genesis 1.

 

[prodromos]

Science can make a model of their variation of the creation that God created. Never said they can not (as for it working like they say, is another subject) make a model of their big bang creation version.

Science only attempts to describe what can be observed. Since creation is supranatural, it cannot be described by science. I do not hold that there was a big bang event. I believe God created a mature universe just like He created Adam as a mature human. I believe God created a globe earth because that is what I observe. If Scripture seems to suggest God created a flat earth then it is my interpretation of Scripture that is wrong.

What i have said is that is not the creation described in The Bible in Genesis 1.

What you have said is that it is not the creation described by your own personal hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis 1.