When the sun, earth and moon line-up we observe a lunar eclipse. Every year there are at least two and as many as five.
You have not explained what you think causes the lunar phases. If not the sun then what is it? Note that for an eclipse to occur there must be a full Moon. If the Moon shines by its own light, as you claim, then eclipses should occur in all phases. They do not.
I don't know why I am arguing this. No one here but you believes this.
You don't understand. Earth's shadow is quite narrow. The Sun's angular diameter in the sky is about the same as the Moon, though sometimes one or the other is larger. Five degrees is plenty to illuminate the Moon and make it visible from both hemispheres.
Of course it is visible from both hemispheres and of course it is seen in the same phase. Mercury and Venus are seen in the same phase as well from both hemispheres.
That's not what the Moon rocks show, but then you probably don't believe in Moon rocks.
By the way. Do you believe the world is flat?
Also, why do you think Mercury and Venus go through phases but not the outer planets?
You have not explained what you think causes the lunar phases. If not the sun then what is it? Note that for an eclipse to occur there must be a full Moon. If the Moon shines by its own light, as you claim, then eclipses should occur in all phases. They do not.
I don't know why I am arguing this. No one here but you believes this.
You don't understand. Earth's shadow is quite narrow. The Sun's angular diameter in the sky is about the same as the Moon, though sometimes one or the other is larger. Five degrees is plenty to illuminate the Moon and make it visible from both hemispheres.
Of course it is visible from both hemispheres and of course it is seen in the same phase. Mercury and Venus are seen in the same phase as well from both hemispheres.
That's not what the Moon rocks show, but then you probably don't believe in Moon rocks.
By the way. Do you believe the world is flat?
Also, why do you think Mercury and Venus go through phases but not the outer planets?
As for the stars: the fact you can view the stars from any hemisphere is further proof the earth is not a spinning ball.
As for shape of the earth theory: Now this is my most recent scientific curiosity indeed. I will say it seems to me the evidence does indeed point to a flat earth, however I am not totally settled on that theory just yet. The other plausible theories to my knowledge are Concave Earth, Convex Earth, and Concave/Convex Earth (meaning concave in the north of the equator and convex south of the equator, though in my opinion this is the weakest of the four theories.) Reviewing the relevant scientific literature seems to me any of these four theories are still on the table as plausible. Spinning Ball Earth is just simply not on the table, there is way too much wrong with that theory for which we could go on for days pointing out its severe flaws. I suppose in fairness a Ball Earth Theory is still plausible, but not with a spin.
To touch on your constant bringing up of the Babylonians, they were not the only ones with disc cosmos. Greeks and Romans, the fathers of western science (whom I am more familiar with) also believed such a theory. For example Aristotle. In fact nearly every ancient culture seems to have been having the Flat Earth vs Ball Earth debate all ready thousands of years ago. Funny enough both are still officially theories 3,000 years later lol. I had noted in the wikipedia article you posted that Ptolmey also noted that if the earth were spinning there'd be cataclysmic winds everyday. And no one has debunked this ancient claim to date.
Bible Earth is circular which could either refer to it being a disc or the circumference of sphere, so graciously the Bible still allows rooms for any of the Five Shape Theories (Flat, Ball, Concave, Convex, Concave/Convex.) Thus it is such an issue is for fair scientific testing, theory, and debate in my opinion there is no sin in investigating such things scientifically.
As for Moon Rocks and supposed visitation of the Moon, aye, I do not believe any of that can be trusted as there is much compelling evidence that moon landing was faked in order to give the US a propaganda victory over the Soviets (darn history always trumping science.) Understand, I did not come to that conclusion easily. Being an Ohioan I used to be quite vainly proud to boast that my homeland conquered the Moon and thus owns it lol. To my dismay though many people have shown me and my own independent research has shown me there is simply too many problems and dubious factors with the moon landing and NASA to trust anything from NASA.
On subject of darkness: Darkness the absence of light photons? Hmm, I think you and I actually might agree on something here Cycel! However, in fair scientific scrutiny due to the Higgs-Boson experiment it may be possible that Darkness is its own material (Dark Energy Theory.)
As for the water rotation: That is all ready covered in the video above. I think you rightly have pointed out yourself Coriolis is only a theory and is insufficient because it does not account for other factors such as how the bathroom fixture was designed, the movement of the water before drainage, etc.
Anyways, perhaps we should make a Cosmology Theory topic so as to stop burdening this theory lol. There is one cool thing about these theories in that, for one, biblically, they're all on the table. No matter which one you believe, it's very interesting that in order to investigate any one of the theories in a fair scientific manner you must investigate them all. It is also kinda cool that this is possibly the very oldest scientific debate known to man and is still officially all theory still today. You will note that all the greatest scientists of history from Ptolmey, to Aristotle, to Newton, to Galileo have questioned the status quo of their time on cosmology. So I posit that if you are a true fan of science we should also question these theories instead of blindly accept the scientific status quo of our time whom are mostly provable frauds with political and religious agendas.
