Ok, guys, I think of myself as a reasonably intelligent person, up to date with the scientific paradigms of our day...

Ok, guys, I think of myself as a reasonably intelligent person, up to date with the scientific paradigms of our day, right? Obviously the earth is round, blah blah blah.

Well, dudes, I have a problem. can any of you explain to me a certain phenomenon that we can all observe?

The moon orbits the Earth, right? And the earth orbits the sun? So if that's the case, why is one side of the moon always dark and the other always light? Think about it before you answer.

Wouldn't the moon be getting light and dark like the earth does? Seriously, what's the answer, here? What am I missing. I've been thinking about this a long time and it doesn't make sense.

tl:dr How is there a perpetually dark side of the moon if the moon orbits?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
youtube.com/watch?v=PqjdRAERWLc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because Jesus Christ that's why.

More like Allah

Bait. You can't be this stupid.

because there isn't

see en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Sent from my Android phone

I'm serious. Instead of being a dick, try logically explaining your reasoning if you have any.

>So if that's the case, why is one side of the moon always dark and the other always light?

It's from our perspective. On earth.

If the Moon didn't spin at all, then eventually it would show its far side to the Earth while moving around our planet in orbit. However, since the rotational period is exactly the same as the orbital period, the same portion of the Moon's sphere is always facing the Earth.

One side isn't perpetually dark. The moon gets light and dark just like Earth.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

I get the tidal locking, but there is supposed to be one side of the moon that's always dark, and in this Tidal Locking model, the moon orbiting around the earth would mean that it gets light and dark on all sides of the moon instead of just one.

So, now is science backpedalling on the idea of a dark side of the moon, or what? I always heard one side of the moon was always in darkness, and one was always in light.

Blasphemy

Sent from my iPhone

It's only the "dark side of the moon" from our perspective. When it passes between the sun and the earth, you can bet the back side of it (facing the sun) isn't dark. But when it's night time wherever you are, and you can see the moon, it's because the earth is between the sun and the moon, so the sun is shining on the face of the moon facing us, making the other side dark. But it isn't always dark

you can all stfu because you won't explain it as well as the wikipedia link i provided. so i'll now just \thread

\thread

Sent from my Android phone

Alright I'll bite. There is no "dark side of the moon". We only see one side because it's rotation and revolution are synchronized in such a way that makes that happen. Why couldn't you just fucking Google it?

Does that seem kind of far fetched though? How the fuck does that randomly happen?

It's almost like designed on purpose, or something.

Test.

it's not random you dumb fuck many satellites are tidally locked. read the wiki page and think about it for a week you seem like you'll need that long to get it

Sent from my Android phone

>How is there a perpetually dark side of the moon if the moon orbits?

There isn't. It's what dumb Hollywood tells you dumb movies.

There is only a far side of the moon.

1. "the dark side of the moon" is a phrase, not a scientific principle. There is no part of the moon that is in permanent darkness.

2. what is usually referred to as the "dark side" should be the Far Side of the moon - that which faces away from the earth.

the reason for that is tidal locking. The moon's rotational period is exactly the same as its orbital period - 28 days. So the same face always points toward earth.

3. why the fuck do I answer these utterly stupid questions?

That makes sense. In hindsight, I must have internalized a shitty 80's sci-fi movie as a kid which specifically had a plot that entertained the idea of a perpetually dark side of the moon.

If you stand in one spot on the Moon for a month, you will watch the sunrise at the beginning, the sunset in the middle, then another sunrise at the end.

It's not that there is no day/night cycle on the moon, it's that from the surface of the Earth and only from the surface of the Earth, it looks like the dark half stays in the same spot.

Yeah, it does seem crazy, but it turns out it's not only a normal result of a smaller object orbiting a larger object, it's the inevitable result for any satellite that will never escape its primary's orbit. Throw any spinning object into orbit around the earth and it will eventually be tidally locked.

The only really unusual thing about the Earth-Moon relation is that, from the surface of the Earth, the Sun and Moon look to be the same size. But that's a normal kind coincidence, if you aren't inclined to believe in magic sky men who built the Solar System.

Thanks m8. that makes sense. when I imagined the Tidal locking model, I couldn't see how there could possibly be a dark side of the moon, which is why I asked the question.

But you could also interpret dark side of the moon as the side we can't see, leaving us in the dark what happens there.

JESUS showed me his moon.

It's pink and soft and vibrates.

So, uh, I guess I'll point out the elephant in the room and say, that if orbiting celestial bodies actually always face one direction (i.e. tidally locked) then wouldn't the flat earth theory make sense and maybe those objects are just flat discs and that's why we only see one face?

Thanks guys, I've been reading all these new posts about flat earth and I guess the brainwashing was starting to get to me.

It honestly makes me want to fly to the south pole just to see for myself.

but I haven't found any flights......

>designed on purpose
Oh? What's the purpose then? For us to have this conversation? Thanks God.

>but I haven't found any flights......
and that should make you think

It does make me think. Makes me think about all the shit I take for granted that people tell me is the truth that I have no way of easily independently verifying.

There are no other countries than the one you live in. All the media you watch and read is made to keep you believing in asshole foreign powers and more pliable to your government.

How rude

Sent from my GameCube

De bepis of jobs covers one side five ever.

Well, I've been to other countries, but like most people, I haven't been to the south pole.

But since I said I've been to other countries, does that mean you think I'm a government shill now?

A flat earth would prevent tidal locking of the moon, because the gravity would be stronger as the moon passed by the edge of the earth. Tidal locking works, in part, because the gravity between the primary and its satellites is effectively constant.

A flat earth and/or moon just doesn't add up with our day/night cycle, the lunar cycle, etc. You can pretty easily simulate a flat earth and/or moon in a program nowadays and if you do, you'll see that a flat earth would behave almost totally differently from a spherical one.

For example, a flat earth would have to be tidally locked with the sun, so that one side was always day and the other always night, otherwise it would tear itself apart.

AND YOU CAN GET IN A FUCKING PLAN AND FLY AROUND THE EARTH YOU MORON. WE CAN FUCKING SEE THAT ITS ROUND. USE YOUR GODDAMNED BRAIN.

You might be interested in Academic Skepticism or epistemology (the study of how we know things) in general.
youtube.com/watch?v=PqjdRAERWLc

There's some pretty compelling reasons to think we can never be entirely certain of anything. It remains possible that the entire universe looks a lot different than it appears through our eyes.

I believed since I was a kid that the Earth was round. It's one of the first things they teach us as kids.

I want to believe that its' not all a lie, but when I looked into flight plans to see for myself, there is no flight that goes over the south pole. Even flights that would make trips to, say, Australia faster, purposefully take a longer route to avoid the south pole.

It's been.. getting to me, I guess....

dude, let me tell you without a shadow of a doubt, that I've been told the most outrageous shit since I was a kid, and the people that told me seemed to believe every word as the truth without doubt.

AS a child, it was when multiple people, earnestly and in honesty told me shit that contradicted each other that I realized that we know no objects, only our perceptions of those objects.

I have no doubt that almost everything is not what it seems, which begs the question of exactly what the fuck the truth is.

Like we have no way of knowing if you are even perceiving things yourself as an incarnate being or if you are some advanced simulation or the subject of some advanced simulation which affects only your perceptions.

And despite your physical environment. In fact, completely independent of it, you only perceive your perceptions.

It's like if you shine xrays or some other electromagnetic radiation into a dark room, your eyes won't see shit, even if it's bathed in light outside of the narrow visible spectrum because one's ability to perceive is limited to their sensory organs, and it's only in our imaginations that the world is more than our immediate perceptions.

I'm glad someone appears to have common sense to stop even thinking about the flat earther nonsense.

However, strangely enough the south pole really isnt a tourist destination, what with the only structure there being a research base, and it being as low as −70 °C in winter, and a "warm" summer day is −15 °C.
The fact that the Pole is 1,000 miles from McMurdo base, the main centre on the continent, and McMurdo is in turn 2,500 miles from New Zealand, the nearest major populated location is rather a reason that you dont really get tourists.......

There are three reasons why flights don't go over the South Pole

>Weather
Not only is the weather over Antarctica bad for flights, the Arctic Ocean is also notorious for bad weather.

>Isolation
If a flight did crash going over the South Pole, everyone is probably going to die before a rescue team can reach them, even if they managed to land without any injuries.

>Distance
Flights go over the North Pole because it's the shortest and straightest route between North America and Europe (try it on a globe with a string.) There are very few Arctic flights on the North America-Siberia or Siberia-Europe route.

The South Pole is simply a longer flight path for any route except The Straits of Magellan (where no one lives) to/from Capetown or Tanzania.
There is probably no objective truth. It's just what we call it when something lines up with our expectations about its properties.

You haven't been to other countries. Those places you flew or drove to were in your own country. Like a movie set, but way cheaper.

I've read some impressively stupid shit on this board, but you may just have won the gold medal.

There is no south pole. It's where all the UFO's enter and exit to get to their home inside the earth. The Reptilians control the governments and companies of the world and don't allow anyone to go there. All modern expeditions encounter problems in the planning phase before the can actually head out.

The earth is a triangular prism you religious nut.

>Weather
Commercial flights fly over the clouds, though, negating the worry about weather, right?

>Isolation
It's just as isolated as the oceans, dude. Planes fly over the oceans every day. II doubt any plane crash anywhere has a huge chance of survival.

>Distance
OK, it's pretty fucking far away from anything else, but that only helps buy into the flat earth idea that it's being hidden on purpose.

I mean, it's this gigantic continent, like the size of Europe or America, with untapped resources, that out of some random fluke, nobody seems interested in?

It's just weird, and doesn't make a ton of sense.

How would we know, we never landed on it to see why.

Sent from my Febreeze.

They spoke another language though. And in that country, I traveled hundred of miles to multiple locations.

Isn't that pretty elaborate hoax for some random pleb vacationing?

They have to keep up the vacation hoax so that people don't question it even a little bit when they "leave". There are many languages, that isn't in question. So why is it surprising that we can cluster people who speak it together?

So what's the incentive for the hoax? The New World Order? A one world government letting everyone entertain an illusion of independence?

I dunno man, I'm not on the inside. But if you've never been to the south pole, if you've never actually been outside of your country, then who knows what's really out there? Could be some Truman show shit where other people watch us. Could be that we're touted as some North Korea apeshit place to keep other people nervous. Could be nothing out there at all. Could be free tendies.

>Commercial flights fly over the clouds, though, negating the worry about weather, right?

Not 100% negation, no. Ice accumulation on the wings will happen in clear skies, for example, and it was only a few decades ago that the problem was solved well enough to make icing a rare problem.

The airlines have to look at it from a liability perspective. If there's a 0.00001% chance of a crash on normal flight paths and if there's a 0.0001% on an Antarctic flight path, they'll choose the one that's 100 times safer even if in practice there would almost never be a crash either way.

>It's just as isolated as the oceans, dude. Planes fly over the oceans every day.

It's more isolated. Get a globe and some string. I live 15 miles from a town and it's 45 minutes to the nearest hospital. Antarctica is like a thousand miles from the nearest airport at the nearest point and it only gets worse.

>OK, it's pretty fucking far away from anything else, but that only helps buy into the flat earth idea that it's being hidden on purpose.
>I mean, it's this gigantic continent, like the size of Europe or America, with untapped resources, that out of some random fluke, nobody seems interested in?

It takes a lot of fuel and time to get there. It takes fuel to get places. The farther away the places are, the more fuel you need to reach it.

Look at it from a money perspective and you'll wonder why anyone would ever go to Antarctica. Then you'll see that the only people who go are scientists and self-proclaimed adventurers, most of whom died.

And furthermore, ANTARCTICA IS FUCKING COLD. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO WORK IN A MINE THAT'S -70 DEGREES CELSIUS. YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY WORKERS MORE THAN YOU COULD SELL WHATEVER PRODUCT THEY MADE FOR.

Everything is weird, if, and only if, you look at it from the right perspective. If something seems weird to you, that says something about your perspective, but it doesn't say much about the something.

>>Weather
>Commercial flights fly over the clouds, though, negating the worry about weather, right?

even though most planes' cruising altitudes are in the region of 30-40,000 feet, well above the normal cloud level. that does not mean that they are safe - High-altitude storms can reach 60,000 feet, and some of the pacific typhoons have been measured up to 75,000 feet - twice the altitude of the highest jet liners.
Its also the case that even without clouds, turbulence and powerful winds are present.

>>Isolation
>It's just as isolated as the oceans, dude. Planes fly over the oceans every day. II doubt any plane crash anywhere has a huge chance of survival.

Compared to Antarctica, even the middle of the Pacific is teeming with activity. There's places in antarctica where you can be 1000 miles away from any living creature, yet alone another person.

More importantly, by the way, is the lack of radar and radio comms. there's no radar coverage of antarctica. The rest of the world is fairly well covered - a few gaps in the pacific and the indian oceans, and tiny gaps in other areas, but generally, flights are tracked throughout the globe, and controlled. Without the radar coverage, any flight would be blind for thousands of miles, without contact to the ground-based flight controllers at all.

>I mean, it's this gigantic continent, like the size of Europe or America, with untapped resources, that out of some random fluke, nobody seems interested in?

its not a fluke. Firstly because we have signed treaties to NOT destroy it with oil drills. More importantly, its not been exploited like that, because it is so remote. it takes military llevels of logistics just to keep a single research station at the pole. Most of the entire continent if covered by 2,000 metres of ice. Its simply not practical to exploit its resources. It makes Alaska look like a tropical paradise.

The Moon has something called libration. It doesn't spin like the Earth, but it has a property called libration. That is why.