Proof the Earth is Flat

[JacksBratt]

I'm not looking for websites. I want you to give Bible verses to back up your claim that the Bible defines the moon as self-luminous. Can you do that?

Mark 13:24 (KJV) But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

Revelation 6:12 ESV / 45
When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood,

Isaiah 13:10 ESV / 30
For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.

Matthew 24:29 ESV / 17
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

 

[JacksBratt]

And I'm still waiting for those Bible verses that define the moon to be self-luminous......

I'm sorry... I went 'outside"..Was I supposed to hunker down in my basement and do your work for you?

 

[JacksBratt]

A solar eclipse:

View attachment 283188

Looking at this diagram, you should be aware of some simple errors.

1/ From the earth, as a viewing point... The sun is the exact same size as the moon.. Not, as this diagram depicts... way way bigger.

2/ The suns rays are parallel.. That is they move in straight lines always... They do not, as the diagram perceives, converge on the earth on conical angles.

3/ When you apply the simple facts shown in points 1 and 2.. you will understand that a light source can never create a shadow that is smaller than the object that is in it's path.

Therefore.. The moon shadow will always be bigger than the moon. The fact that the sun is the same size, in the sky, viewing from earth... and that the rays of light are always parallel... There is then no Umbra or penumbra...

If, the sun appeared much larger than the moon, from our vantage point on the earth.. Then you would never have the dark disk... or the "diamond ring"....

The diagram is nonsense.

 

[d taylor]

View attachment 283183

Oh come on now, that's the very evidence that shows the moon is not self-luminous. In each phase of the moon when it is not full, it is not directly opposite the sun with respect to the earth. In this picture, the moon is being lit by the sun with the sun to the right. That's why half the moon is not lit.

Do you not understand on a science sphere moon there is always half of the moon in a full moon.

 

[d taylor]

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or not but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If the sun, with respect to the earth, is positioned to the right of the moon, then only the right side of the moon will be lit when viewed from the earth. Why should it be lit all the way round if the sun is not shining on the surface that is facing away from the sun?

Again no half of the moon is being lit by the sun, it does not matter if you are seeing only a quarter of a lit moon there is still a full moon there giving off light on a science sphere moon. So a quarter moon seen from the earth if the moon is a sphere lit by the sun it should look like this photo. But it is never seen this way.

Only like this.

 

[d taylor]

Moon phases:View attachment 283194

And please note, during the New Moon phase, if the earth, moon and sun are in an exact straight line, then a solar eclipse will occur. However if they are not and one is higher than the other with respect to the earth, then the moon will not obscure the sun, there will be no solar eclipse and moon will not be seen at all.

I am not talking about an eclipse.
Ok you take a light source and take a sphere representing the moon place it in front of your sun light source (for a new moon phase) and show me that your sphere will disappear and can not be seen. That this sphere will not appear as a silhouette in the sky. And use a gray value to represent what science says the moon surface is.

 

[Phil G]

Mark 13:24 (KJV) But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

Revelation 6:12 ESV / 45
When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood,

Isaiah 13:10 ESV / 30
For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.

Matthew 24:29 ESV / 17
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

As I have stated previously to another poster, these verses are depicting a future supernatural event outside of the current natural order of the sun, earth, moon and stars. Regarding the moon, all that is implied is the moon normally gives light, not how it does.

It would be a bit like predicting that Jesus will turn water into wine at Cana and so water has properties that allow it to become wine normally.

 

[Phil G]

I'm sorry... I went 'outside"..Was I supposed to hunker down in my basement and do your work for you?

No.

 

[Phil G]

Looking at this diagram, you should be aware of some simple errors.

1/ From the earth, as a viewing point... The sun is the exact same size as the moon.. Not, as this diagram depicts... way way bigger.

2/ The suns rays are parallel.. That is they move in straight lines always... They do not, as the diagram perceives, converge on the earth on conical angles.

3/ When you apply the simple facts shown in points 1 and 2.. you will understand that a light source can never create a shadow that is smaller than the object that is in it's path.

Therefore.. The moon shadow will always be bigger than the moon. The fact that the sun is the same size, in the sky, viewing from earth... and that the rays of light are always parallel... There is then no Umbra or penumbra...

If, the sun appeared much larger than the moon, from our vantage point on the earth.. Then you would never have the dark disk... or the "diamond ring"....

The diagram is nonsense.

1/ Of course the sun is bigger than the moon - and it's further away. Ever notice how far away objects appear smaller than their normal size?

2/ Ever look at straight parallel railway tracks into the distance? Do they look parallel? They also appear to converge into the distance and diverge towards the observer, but they are still parallel. They wouldn't work too well if the were not!

3/ When you understand the clear logical answers to points 1 and 2... you will understand that a light source will create a shadow that is smaller than the object in its path... if the distances are sufficient.

Therefore the moon's shadow will be smaller than the moon and we do get a 'dark disk' and diamond ring.

 

[Phil G]

Do you not understand on a science sphere moon there is always half of the moon in a full moon.

Of course, but it's not lit. And if the moon is self luminous why is that so?

 

[Phil G]

I am not talking about an eclipse.
Ok you take a light source and take a sphere representing the moon place it in front of your sun light source (for a new moon phase) and show me that your sphere will disappear and can not be seen. That this sphere will not appear as a silhouette in the sky. And use a gray value to represent what science says the moon surface is.

I'm going to use someone else's diagram but here:

And while it would be legitimate to argue that you should still see part of the moon when it is in either the upper or lower locations, it is still so close to the sun that the small sliver of the lit surface of the moon cannot be seen. Try taking a very bright light, so bright that you cannot look directly at it and place it at one end of a room. Place an object in front of it but at about 5 degrees under it (or over it) and then stand at the other end of the room. Would you be able to see the object?

 

[JacksBratt]

As I have stated previously to another poster, these verses are depicting a future supernatural event outside of the current natural order of the sun, earth, moon and stars. Regarding the moon, all that is implied is the moon normally gives light, not how it does.

It would be a bit like predicting that Jesus will turn water into wine at Cana and so water has properties that allow it to become wine normally.

Actually, if you read it.. The sun goes dark but the moon is still blood red.... The moon would go dark too.... if the sun does.

 

[JacksBratt]

1/ Of course the sun is bigger than the moon - and it's further away. Ever notice how far away objects appear smaller than their normal size?

2/ Ever look at straight parallel railway tracks into the distance? Do they look parallel? They also appear to converge into the distance and diverge towards the observer, but they are still parallel. They wouldn't work too well if the were not!

View attachment 283226

3/ When you understand the clear logical answers to points 1 and 2... you will understand that a light source will create a shadow that is smaller than the object in its path... if the distances are sufficient.

Therefore the moon's shadow will be smaller than the moon and we do get a 'dark disk' and diamond ring.

All these points are invalid.

The sun, seen from earth, no matter how far away it is.. is seen as the exact same size. Thus, you cannot make a diagram where it is 4 or 5 times bigger and imply that this is why the rays of light do what they do in the diagram... It is a misrepresentation.

Yes, the view of the railway going away is optics.. The suns rays, however, are always parallel.. not optics.

Thus, again, your object that is creating a shadow... will always always always ... cast a shadow that is larger than itself... Never ever does an object cast a shadow that is smaller than it's actual size.

Further.. if you have ever done this.. if you have a light source that is much larger than an object that is casting a shadow... the amount of light that is projected from the area larger than the smaller object... obscures the shadow and there is actually no shadow.

So, in your famous diagram (don't get me wrong, I know it's not your diagram but has been presented for years to the sheep who never actually question these things) This diagram should have a small area of blurry slightly less illuminated area on the earth but not close to the shadow that we see when the sun... is, in the sky... the exact .... exact..... exact same size as the moon....

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm going to use someone else's diagram but here:

View attachment 283225

And while it would be legitimate to argue that you should still see part of the moon when it is in either the upper or lower locations, it is still so close to the sun that the small sliver of the lit surface of the moon cannot be seen. Try taking a very bright light, so bright that you cannot look directly at it and place it at one end of a room. Place an object in front of it but at about 5 degrees under it (or over it) and then stand at the other end of the room. Would you be able to see the object?

LOL.. this diagram is even more laughable..

But.. we have been taught, conditioned, trained .. to not think...

Look at the shadows... They are conical... however.. shadows are the inverse of this diagram.. Shadows get larger, not smaller.. as the surface that they are projected onto get further away.

As the surface gets closer the shadow will get smaller.. until it is the actual.... not smaller... ever... actual size of the object.

 

[Phil G]

Actually, if you read it.. The sun goes dark but the moon is still blood red.... The moon would go dark too.... if the sun does.

It doesn't matter. A future supernatural event cannot be used to define the current properties of the moon's light.

 

[Phil G]

All these points are invalid.

The sun, seen from earth, no matter how far away it is.. is seen as the exact same size. Thus, you cannot make a diagram where it is 4 or 5 times bigger and imply that this is why the rays of light do what they do in the diagram... It is a misrepresentation.

Yes, the view of the railway going away is optics.. The suns rays, however, are always parallel.. not optics.

Thus, again, your object that is creating a shadow... will always always always ... cast a shadow that is larger than itself... Never ever does an object cast a shadow that is smaller than it's actual size.

Further.. if you have ever done this.. if you have a light source that is much larger than an object that is casting a shadow... the amount of light that is projected from the area larger than the smaller object... obscures the shadow and there is actually no shadow.

So, in your famous diagram (don't get me wrong, I know it's not your diagram but has been presented for years to the sheep who never actually question these things) This diagram should have a small area of blurry slightly less illuminated area on the earth but not close to the shadow that we see when the sun... is, in the sky... the exact .... exact..... exact same size as the moon....

'The sun, seen from earth, no matter how far away it is.. is seen as the exact same size.'
This makes no sense. Any object when is far away from the observer appears smaller to the observer than its actual size. It's not a misrepresentation, it's a diagram not to scale to explain a principle.

'The suns rays, however, are always parallel.. not optics.' Yes the sun's rays are always parallel but the 'penumbra' is also the moon's shadow and it is much larger than the moon. Here is a screenshot of someone demonstrating this with a couple of nails:

The nail you can see is for comparison. Another one is further towards the light source. The 'penumbra', part of the shadow is larger than both the visible nail and its shadow. However the dark part of the shadow, or 'umbra', of the nail nearer the light source is smaller than both the visible nail and its shadow. If you watch the video at full screen, it's even more obvious.

 

[JacksBratt]

It doesn't matter. A future supernatural event cannot be used to define the current properties of the moon's light.

That's convenient...

Why not? You think that the moon is going to be a reflection of the sun for 6000 to 7000 years.. then just when the sun goes black... the moon is going to start singing " this little light of mine, I'm gunna let it shine"?

 

[Phil G]

LOL.. this diagram is even more laughable..

But.. we have been taught, conditioned, trained .. to not think...

Look at the shadows... They are conical... however.. shadows are the inverse of this diagram.. Shadows get larger, not smaller.. as the surface that they are projected onto get further away.

As the surface gets closer the shadow will get smaller.. until it is the actual.... not smaller... ever... actual size of the object.

Of course, those who believe the earth to be spherical are 'conditioned' into 'not thinking'. This is the most common accusation levelled against spherical earth proponents by flat earthers. I don't know about you but when I went to school and beyond we were always taught to think and question what we are told. That's how we learn. There's no point in believing something by just accepting it. It's why I believe in the salvation of Jesus, not because I was taught it, but because I questioned it and found it to be true.

See my previous post for answer to your shadow objection.

 

[JacksBratt]

'The sun, seen from earth, no matter how far away it is.. is seen as the exact same size.'
This makes no sense.

The sun is seen as the exact same size as the moon.. .I didn't finish the sentence to explain that but I figured it was apparrent...

Of course an object that is farther away looks smaller.. That's why the sun appears the exact same size as the moon.. from our viewing point..

Which... is why your diagram is in valid.

'The suns rays, however, are always parallel.. not optics.'

Yes the sun's rays are always parallel but the 'penumbra' is also the moon's shadow and it is much larger than the moon. Here is a screenshot of someone demonstrating this with a couple of nails:



The nail you can see is for comparison. Another one is further towards the light source. The 'penumbra', part of the shadow is larger than both the visible nail and its shadow. However the dark part of the shadow, or 'umbra', of the nail nearer the light source is smaller than both the visible nail and its shadow. If you watch the video at full screen, it's even more obvious.

[/quote]

Again... when the light source is much larger than the object blocking it's light... You will get the effect that you are demonstrating..

If, the light source, from the projection surface, is viewed as the exact same size as the object casting the shadow.....the shadow will be larger than the object creating the shadow... and.. there will not be any umbra, penumbra, umbrella, umbilical or any other UM words.


And, if the object, like your nail, is tipped toward the light source, the area that is blocking the light will be reduced. That is how you would get a smaller shadow.

Kinda like taking a coin and turning it so that the edge is blocking the light as opposed to the entire coin...

Your diagrams are incorrect if you are trying to duplicate what is happening with the sun and moon.

 

[Phil G]

That's convenient...

Why not? You think that the moon is going to be a reflection of the sun for 6000 to 7000 years.. then just when the sun goes black... the moon is going to start singing " this little light of mine, I'm gunna let it shine"?

Sarcasm. No God can do with His creation whatever He wants. So the moon will not 'give her light' or go blood red. That says nothing about whether the moon's light is its own light or a reflection of the sun's. In Proverbs 15:30 eyes are described as having 'light'. Do they generate their own light?