Proof the Earth is Flat

[Phil G]

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.

But the moon and sun are not the exact same size. They only appear to be by optics.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

If you have been taught, as I have, to question things... Why do you think that your diagrams are, in any way, a representation of the truth... They are flawed.. as I have pointed out.

 

[Phil G]

'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.'

This has been proven to wrong by the video.

 

[JacksBratt]

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?

You want to go down that path now? Why not question if Jesus is actually a door?

The ability to discern between what is literal and what is metaphorical.. is not difficult.

 

[JacksBratt]

But the moon and sun are not the exact same size. They only appear to be by optics.

Exactly.. from our view, on earth, they are the exact same size.. So.................................................
Your diagram is invalid.

 

[Phil G]

If you have been taught, as I have, to question things... Why do you think that your diagrams are, in any way, a representation of the truth... They are flawed.. as I have pointed out.

You haven't pointed out at all. You have just said they are wrong by saying they are not possible..

 

[Phil G]

You want to go down that path now? Why not question if Jesus is actually a door?

The ability to discern between what is literal and what is metaphorical.. is not difficult.

That's my point. Flat earthers try to read into a verse beyond what it is saying.

 

[Phil G]

Exactly.. from our view, on earth, they are the exact same size.. So.................................................
Your diagram is invalid.

No they only appear to be. I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it now.

 

[JacksBratt]

No they only appear to be. I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it now.

The diagram is not a true representation of reality.

When viewed from the surface on which the shadow is projected.. the light source and the object creating the shadow... are the same size.

This means that the diagram is not too scale.

If what we witness on the earth.. was, in reality, as the diagram describes... then the sun would engulf the moon. The moon would only be a small obstruction within the immense disk of the brightness of the sun...

And... if that was the case.. we would never see the "halo" effect, Baileys beads or the diamond ring, around the sun.

Totality and maximum eclipse: The Moon completely covers the disk of the Sun. Only the Sun's corona is visible. This is the most dramatic stage of a total solar eclipse. At this time, the sky goes dark, temperatures can fall, and birds and animals often go quiet. The midpoint of time of totality is known as the maximum point of the eclipse. Observers in the path of the Moon's umbra may be able to see Baily's beads and the diamond ring effect, just after totality ends. From: A Total Solar Eclipse Isn't Total Everywhere

Don't worry. Even the website that I got the above quote from.. has the same erroneous diagram.

I am not even sure if the people that produce these diagrams are aware of how incorrect they are.. or.. if they cognitively do it intentionally to cover the fact that the shadow of the moon is too small..

Also, there was all this hype at the last solar eclipse where NASA was trying to describe why the moon shadow moves the wrong way across the earths surface...

Just another comedic event in the presentation of the universe around us...

If you just watch and don't ask.. you will never know.

 

[Phil G]

The diagram is not a true representation of reality.

When viewed from the surface on which the shadow is projected.. the light source and the object creating the shadow... are the same size.

This means that the diagram is not too scale.

If what we witness on the earth.. was, in reality, as the diagram describes... then the sun would engulf the moon. The moon would only be a small obstruction within the immense disk of the brightness of the sun...

And... if that was the case.. we would never see the "halo" effect, Baileys beads or the diamond ring, around the sun.

Totality and maximum eclipse: The Moon completely covers the disk of the Sun. Only the Sun's corona is visible. This is the most dramatic stage of a total solar eclipse. At this time, the sky goes dark, temperatures can fall, and birds and animals often go quiet. The midpoint of time of totality is known as the maximum point of the eclipse. Observers in the path of the Moon's umbra may be able to see Baily's beads and the diamond ring effect, just after totality ends. From: A Total Solar Eclipse Isn't Total Everywhere

Don't worry. Even the website that I got the above quote from.. has the same erroneous diagram.

I am not even sure if the people that produce these diagrams are aware of how incorrect they are.. or.. if they cognitively do it intentionally to cover the fact that the shadow of the moon is too small..

Also, there was all this hype at the last solar eclipse where NASA was trying to describe why the moon shadow moves the wrong way across the earths surface...

Just another comedic event in the presentation of the universe around us...

If you just watch and don't ask.. you will never know.

Ok, this is a simple as I can make it. Yes, in the video I posted previously, the nail is much smaller than the light source. However, if you were to place your eye level with the wall where the shadow falls, the nail would appear to be as wide as the light source. Within the darkest shadow which is smaller than the nail itself, the light source would be seen to be completely covered by the nail.

It is exactly the same principle with the moon and sun. The moon and sun appear to be the same size when viewed from earth but the reality is the moon is much smaller than the sun, just as the nail in the video is in reality much smaller than the light source but from the perspective of the surface of the wall, appears to be wide enough to cover the view of the light source.

And the same principle of the shadow follows in both situations. There is a dark middle part of the shadow which is smaller than the object itself. Then there is a less dark part of the shadow which is much bigger than the object itself.

The dark part of the shadow is called the ‘umbra’. The less dark part is called the ‘penumbra’. These are real terms applied to parts of a shadow, whether it be the moon’s shadow or another object’s.

This principle is demonstrable and factual. If you don’t accept it, then you are rejecting clear reality.

It is also a clear example of why ‘what appears to be’ cannot used as evidence for ‘what is’.

 

[JacksBratt]

Ok, this is a simple as I can make it. Yes, in the video I posted previously, the nail is much smaller than the light source. However, if you were to place your eye level with the wall where the shadow falls, the nail would appear to be as wide as the light source.

No, it would not. This video does not say anything about that. The situation in real life.. is similar to when he moves that nail closer to the light.. which is bigger than the nail and there is not much of a shadow at all. That is.. if the sun is as big as your diagram depicts.

When the nail ( why use a skinny little nail? Because a marble would have shown his example to be false) When the nail is very close to the wall... the shadow is still either the same size ( due to how close it is to the wall) or bigger than the nail...

I still stand by the fact that the shadow will never be smaller than the object casting it...

In your video you can see... as soon as the nail is moved away.. the shadow becomes a blurr.. not at all like what we see on earth...


Anyway...I've spent enough time on this. You believe what you want.. You're not changing your mind... neither am I..

God bless.

 

[Phil G]

No, it would not. This video does not say anything about that. The situation in real life.. is similar to when he moves that nail closer to the light.. which is bigger than the nail and there is not much of a shadow at all. That is.. if the sun is as big as your diagram depicts.

When the nail ( why use a skinny little nail? Because a marble would have shown his example to be false) When the nail is very close to the wall... the shadow is still either the same size ( due to how close it is to the wall) or bigger than the nail...

I still stand by the fact that the shadow will never be smaller than the object casting it...

In your video you can see... as soon as the nail is moved away.. the shadow becomes a blurr.. not at all like what we see on earth...


Anyway...I've spent enough time on this. You believe what you want.. You're not changing your mind... neither am I..

God bless.

But I thought you were 'no flat earther'! Anyway thanks for the debate and I'll let the readers of the thread decide.

The Lord bless you too in your walk with Him!

 

[JacksBratt]

But I thought you were 'no flat earther'! Anyway thanks for the debate and I'll let the readers of the thread decide.

The Lord bless you too in your walk with Him!

The question as to whether the moon gives it's own light, and other unique queries about it.. is not inclusive to the FE debate..

But, thanks for the poke...

 

[Phil G]

The question as to whether the moon gives it's own light, and other unique queries about it.. is not inclusive to the FE debate..

But, thanks for the poke...

I thought you had spent enough time on this. I think it's pretty obvious you're FE believer. But whatever, I was sincere when I said the Lord bless you.

 

[d taylor]

• 
  
  Why do the bottom three moons (red arrow), waning Gibbous, three quarter half moon and waning crescent. Have the incorrect lighting, the lit part and the shadow part are reversed.

I also added the lit side on the new moon.

 

[d taylor]

Actually the lighting should be like this and not like the one you posted. But again these just work on paper, a working model with a rotating earth and a moon going around the rotating earth. With a sun lighting this up, i do not believe can be made to work.

 

[Phil G]

• View attachment 283257
  Why do the bottom three moons (red arrow), waning Gibbous, three quarter half moon and waning crescent. Have the incorrect lighting, the lit part and the shadow part are reversed.

I also added the lit side on the new moon.

Yes fair enough. Obviously not a great diagram. As regards your lit side for the new moon, that's the side facing away from the earth so not visible from earth.

 

[Phil G]

Actually the lighting should be like this and not like the one you posted. But again these just work on paper, a working model with a rotating earth and a moon going around the rotating earth. With a sun lighting this up, i do not believe can be made to work.

View attachment 283259

Again yes poor diagram, but as I said the tiny sliver of the moon's surface facing the earth which would be lit by the sun at (non-eclipse) new moon would not be visible while it is 5 degrees max out of line with the sun. But the one thing you are conveniently ignoring is... where did the moon's light go in any of non-full phases if it is self-luminous?

And to go back to my original question to you, where are the verses which define the moon as self-luminous in the Bible... the ones which are not describing a future supernatural event caused by God Himself?

 

[d taylor]

Yes fair enough. Obviously not a great diagram. As regards your lit side for the new moon, that's the side facing away from the earth so not visible from earth.

Regardless of whether the lit area of the moon is facing the earth or not, light shinning from the moon should be visible.

Just like this illustration i have posted before.

But again that is not seen, the only light seen coming from the moon is right where the light is at this little quarter. But some light should be visible around the edge, all the way around the moon. That is if the moon was a sphere lit by the sun.

 

[Phil G]

Regardless of whether the lit area of the moon is facing the earth or not, light shinning from the moon should be visible.

Just like this illustration i have posted before.

View attachment 283296

But again that is not seen, the only light seen coming from the moon is right where the light is at this little quarter. But some light should be visible around the edge, all the way around the moon. That is if the moon was a sphere lit by the sun.

View attachment 283297
View attachment 283298

Not if the sun is to one side of the moon and further away from from earth than the moon. How can one section of a sphere (edge or not) be lit by the sun if the sun is not shining on that section? It seems to me that you are arguing a FE concept of the moon. A surface can only reflect the sun's light if the sun is shining on it.

And once again, where does the moon's light go in all the phases other than a full moon if the moon is self-luminous? If it is self-luminous, moon phases should not happen.