So let’s start off with some common ground. I’m sure most people will agree the moon revolves around earth. So with that in mind, how do you think it’s possible if the moon revolves around earth. That the sun is making the same path in the sky that the moon does? It’s the story of the tortoise and the hare. The moon is the tortoise it’s slower than the sun but yet it completes the ecliptic in one month. Winning the race. The sun takes a whole year to make the same path but flys across the sky faster than the moon. Our senses tell us we are stationary but we are told we are spinning and flying around the sun and we have to believe it on blind faith.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Conservation of angular momentum and gravitational torque on rotating bodies. Build or visit an orrery to see the mechanics in action. You can see which gear ratios describe the phenomena we experience in our sky.
However when you enter the values for gravity of the earth and sun everything works fine but once you add the moon nothing works. This is the called the body problem. So you see your explanation doesn’t match reality there is no other example where you can demonstrate what we observe successfully
Howso? What masses and distances are you using? Are you including the gravitation of the outer gas giants in your equations?
You may find that your calculations ebb and flow on either side of the expected depending on whether Jupiter is nearer Earth or the Sun.
Are you under the impression that the moon and sun exist in the same orbit? Because that's not how it works.
The framework is simple - the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the Moon revolves around the Earth, at a far closer distance. And the Earth also revolves around itself at a far greater speed than either the solar or the lunar rotational period. So, at least as far as day and night are concerned, it's not them spinning around us to begin with.
In turn, here's a question for disk believers:
For starters, I'm using what we can call the "standard" disk model, with the North Pole at the center and Antarctica on the edges of the disk.
Now, in order to account for the fact that it's always daytime somewhere on Earth, the Sun should effectively never set, and would not only have to hover in a somewhat circular pattern, but also work like a spotlight, only lighting a particular part of an otherwise flat surface. But in addition, that light would have to curve, in order to provide for the appearance of sunrises and sunsets at ground level, instead of, well, a giant spotlight in the sky. Which is a kind of behavior that's never been observed from any light source, even in the most extreme cases of cosmic gravitational lensing.
But wait, here's the real problem - lunar phases. Particularly the full moon and lunar eclipses. On some days, both the Sun and the Moon are visible in the sky, and the light side of the Moon is always turned toward the Sun, making the case it's lit by the Sun, and with a lighting pattern consistent with the Moon itself being a sphere. Meaning, the only way for a full moon to exist, would be if the Sun is almost directly beneath the Moon. But at that point, it should also be plainly visible from the same spot on Earth as well.
And then there's lunar eclipses, which is when the Moon starts off brightly lit - again by the Sun that's nowhere to be seen at the time - and then suddenly gets shadowed by a mysterious object, before returning to a fully lit state shortly after.
So - how does it all work? In the globe model, lunar phases and eclipses are easy to explain and demonstrate with even the simplest pictures and tools. And so are sunsets and sunrises.
Similarly, in the ancient disk model - where people didn't have to account for daytime in faraway nations - lunar phases and even eclipses could be explained by the Sun being beneath the Earth, and thus lighting the Moon from beneath as well. Just as sunrises and sunsets would simply mean the Sun rising and diving beneath the Earth disk.
But nowadays, if we have to account for international (dare I say global) day and night cycles, the only model that can explain all the above with no inconsistencies is that of the Earth being a sphere revolving around itself, the Moon revolving around it, and both of them revolving around the Sun.
This is not the smoking gun you were hoping for, unfortunately.
unfortunately our local sun is a delicate subject here still.
They do both rise and east and set in the west I observe this myself daily. As do the stars all except Polaris. Do you think it’s a coincidence that they look about the same size and make the same motions in the sky. Or is it possible that we are the center of the universe and everything is indeed revolving around us just as it looks. Even if you still believe we live on a ball our senses tell us we are the center as do observations.
I think if we're gonna have meaningful conversations about this stuff we have to start with some basic stuff:
Calling people "globe believers" is just as dogmatic as those people calling you "flat earthers". It solves nothing and gets us nowhere closer to the truth.
With that said, there are some anomalies that are impossible to simply explain away:
There are many more examples that are not easy to dismiss, or outright impossible to even argue against when you see them. On top of this, there are very clear cases of people trying to debunk flat earth that end up further supporting it by accident. For example, there was some discovery channel show where they had a helicopter Some number of miles away across the lake and they had the helicopter lower down to go behind the curvature and disappear, but upon further inspection it was shown that they used the same footage multiple times (somebody spotted a flock of birds flying through the scene and were able to identify the frames based on this), not to mention the helicopter was turned the opposite direction when they zoomed in on the horizon line cutoff moment.
On top of this, we know for absolute certain that at least some of the footage on the supposed ISS has been faked completely, and why would they need to do that? We know that there is endless deception coming from NASA. Anybody with an IQ over 90 knows that the moon landing was fake. Anyone with an IQ over 95 knows that the Mars rover is actually on Baffin Island in Canada. Why are all these things fake if the science they tell us about outer space is real?
With all that said, I don't "believe" that the earth is flat or that it is a globe. I only know what I know, and I do not know either of these things. It seems intuitive that we are on a globe, because when you look in the sky you can support this by observing other apparent globes that follow the same model. However, it's impossible to rectify this with the "flat earth proofs" that we know to also be true. The only way in my mind to rectify these things without creating a hyper confusing and overly inefficient physical model with a miniature sun and moon floating around above (doesn't make sense to me) is that we are actually inside of a closed system and the sky is a screen. I don't believe this is the case either. I just don't know any of this. But assuming one side or the other is a great way to not ever learn what the real truth is. There's way too much evidence to support some form of the flat earth theories out there to just simply brush it aside, but there's way too much reason to believe we are on a globe circling the sun to just simply brush that aside also. The only way we can know is by knowing, not by arguing from bias.