Flat earth, Nature

Bad Flat Earth Arguments: Transparent Moon

The flat earth community have a lot of good arguments supporting the flat earth model. However some of the arguments, even though they may be correct, are not convincing to people; in fact hey may have the opposite effect. This may be because they:

  • Are explained just as well on the Globe model
  • Rely on more fundamental knowledge about the flat plane that must be explained first.
  • Or they are plain wrong

I see some of these floating around and I imagine thereason to be that either the flat earther does not know how the phenomena works or is explained in the globe earth model, or, God forbid, he is a shill. The end result in anyway is that people introduced to the idea think that flat earthers are justas silly as they imagined, if not more so.

So I would like to play Devil's Advocate in order to strengthen the community.

The moon is a translucent disc

Maybe it is, I don't know. But one of the arguments put forth is that "we can see the blue sky through the dark part of the moon." According to this idea, the backdrop is the blue dome, and the moon is a translucent disk that can change shape to let through more or less blue. See the below chart.

Whether true or false, when someone hears this as their first argument for a flat earth, they will think you're crazy. Why? Because the globe model have its own explanation that makes just as much, if not more, sense to them.

Comparison of globe and flat earth model explaining the blue shadow of the moon
The globe model says that the moon is a solid body in space and that the blue you see in the dark part of the moon is because of the blueish haze of the gasses in the atmosphere overlaid on top of the image. I mean, what else is to be expected; that the dark part of the moon should be black while the rest of the sky is blue?

So if faced with the choice of a solid object overlaid by translucent blue gasses, or a blue solid backdrop overlaid by a translucent animated disc, most normal people will go with the one they can concieve off, the first one.

So, never use it?

Not saying it's wrong or never to use it, only that it is not the best way to introduce someone to the flat earth theory. Instead this is something that should be introduced as a theory first after the person himself have asked about the subject – and then with supporting evidence.