Offline Blart

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
The Moon
« on: August 07, 2017, 03:04:47 PM »
When the Moon is over the Equator on FE
How is it that peope in both hemispheres see the same face of the moon and in fact everyone including people in a position that the moon is travelling to see the same face as the moon as people that observe the moon as it has past over head.

All those people at the same time see the same face of the moon. How does FE explain this.
Thanks.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2017, 03:15:45 PM »
This is because the higher a receding body is, the less it turns to its side to perspective. In the Moon's case it is such a great hight that it barely turns at all (it does turn a little, however; look up the moon's daily liberation).

The Ancient Greeks did not really test how perspective works on a large scale, and their math assumes a continuous universe (ie. that the turn will be infinitely slower, and that perspective lines will recede infinitely into the distance without meeting) without any real evidence for that at all.

It is possible to theorize with their math that the moon should turn more than it does, but no real evidence for how things should be at that scale. Does the slowness max out at some point? Do the perspective lines really continue infinitely? These are unanswered questions and an ancient mathematical model is insufficient as an explanation.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2017, 03:20:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Blart

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2017, 03:48:14 PM »
Why are you talking about how the Moon turns? Im talking about observation from say 4 peoples position on earth looking at the Moon at the same time. So The question is simpler than that.

If im below a ball  that is hanging from the centre of a room and im in one corner of the room and you are below the ball in another corner of the room and the ball has a dot drawn on it facing directly my face. How is the dot directly facing your face at the same time?
It doesnt matter if you put the ball a mile high the dot will always only be facing me and not you.. Please tell me how this fits with what i see at night with everyone else that observes the same thing.

Imagine the moon is directly in the middle of 4 peoples positions on Earth at one point in the night. One observer see the moon travelling towards him. Then over his head and then away While another observer sees the moon disapearing away from him. The third sees the moon travelling across the sky from left to right. The fourth observer sees the moon travelling the opposite way. How do they all see the same "face" of the moon at any point of the moons travels over the night?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2017, 04:14:14 PM by Blart »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2017, 05:03:04 PM »
If you have a solved rubix cube suspended 1 foot above your head and look upwards you will see its white underside. If this rubix cube then floats across the room you will be able to see its green colored side when it reaches the far wall 30 feet away.

However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

Offline Blart

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2017, 05:39:36 PM »
I assure you, Use a telescope and you will see the different sides of the cube from all different locations from below in great detail. Do you not see how much the view of the moon would be different to someone in the extreme north compared to extreme south positions on the Earth? Even without a telescope? Sorry but i honestly came here to find out what you guys had for these questions.
Im not a basher of FE earth at all .if anything i wanted to learn the full theory but these questions ive posted i think ae seriously tough to answer for FE .Just wanted to see if you guys had a concrete answer as to why.

To me the same view of the Moon we see doesnt add up to FE earth theory.
The Stars rotation hasnt been answered yet.
The North pole Moon observation is something of a puzzle too for me to fit with FE theory. So yep i honestly just wanted to know how the current model fits with those questions ive asked.

 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2017, 05:58:15 PM by Blart »

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2017, 05:54:30 PM »
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

Offline Blart

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2017, 06:09:00 PM »
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

I agree
A person below the Moon would see the bottom. Two people far apart would get a 45 degree view and so 90 degrees difference to them . Theres absolutely no way all three of them would see the same view of the Moon. Altitude of the Moon makes no difference. The angles narrow down but its impossible physically for everyone to see the same side. Especially with a good old telescope. I was hoping for a good answer to this one.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2017, 06:11:15 PM by Blart »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2017, 09:02:01 PM »
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

I agree
A person below the Moon would see the bottom. Two people far apart would get a 45 degree view and so 90 degrees difference to them . Theres absolutely no way all three of them would see the same view of the Moon. Altitude of the Moon makes no difference. The angles narrow down but its impossible physically for everyone to see the same side. Especially with a good old telescope. I was hoping for a good answer to this one.

Lets go back to the rubix cube example. The rubix cube is suspended 1 mile in the air and the people in the room, standing at every corner of the 30 foot by 30 foot room, will all see the same white underside of the rubix cube when they look upwards. No one is really disagreeing with this.

We do not know what relationship perspective will scale at, but to showcase a simple example of how it could all be possible, let us take that relationship and imagine that it is linear and multiply by 3000. The rubix cube is now 3000 miles (1 x 3000) in the air and instead of a 30 foot long room we have a 90,000 foot long room (30 x 3000). 90,000 feet is over 17 miles, which is more than the distance to the horizon's vanishing point near sea level. This means that the rubix cube could travel from overhead to the vanishing point and rotate less than it would if it were 1 mile in height and moving across 30 feet.

That is just one example for how perspective could scale. There are other possibilities which might result in a different outcome (imagining that the relationship is continuous like the Ancient Greeks did, for example), but since there is no available research on the maximums of perspective theory, we are not permitted to say how distant bodies will appear to the observer.

Offline Blart

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2017, 09:05:05 PM »
So as you've recalculated that as linear from the given size of the room can you now give the figures you have for how high and big the Moon is and how big Earth is? I could calculate the angles from that from two given points on Earth at night.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2017, 09:08:38 PM by Blart »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2017, 09:10:34 PM »
That was merely an example of possibility, not an actual figure. There is a lack of research on the maximums of perspective theory and it is quite possible that it may scale or operate differently than the scenario I invented on the spot.

Re: The Moon
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2017, 09:13:20 PM »
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

I agree
A person below the Moon would see the bottom. Two people far apart would get a 45 degree view and so 90 degrees difference to them . Theres absolutely no way all three of them would see the same view of the Moon. Altitude of the Moon makes no difference. The angles narrow down but its impossible physically for everyone to see the same side. Especially with a good old telescope. I was hoping for a good answer to this one.

Lets go back to the rubix cube example. The rubix cube is suspended 1 mile in the air and the people in the room, standing at every corner of the 30 foot by 30 foot room, will all see the same white underside of the rubix cube when they look upwards. No one is really disagreeing with this.

We do not know what relationship perspective will scale at, but to showcase a simple example of how it could all be possible, let us take that relationship and imagine that it is linear and multiply by 3000. The rubix cube is now 3000 miles (1 x 3000) in the air and instead of a 30 foot long room we have a 90,000 foot long room (30 x 3000). 90,000 feet is over 17 miles, which is more than the distance to the horizon's vanishing point near sea level. This means that the rubix cube could travel from overhead to the vanishing point and rotate less than it would if it were 1 mile in height and moving across 30 feet.

That is just one example for how perspective could scale. There are other possibilities which might result in a different outcome (imagining that the relationship is continuous like the Ancient Greeks did, for example), but since there is no available research on the maximums of perspective theory, we are not permitted to say how distant bodies will appear to the observer.
But we're not talking about that small of a relationship. 1 mile compared to 30 feet isn't what's being discussed. The moon can be seen from two people more than 5,000 miles apart. If the moon were 3,000 miles up, why would they not see vastly different views of the moon? For your Rubiks cube, a more accurate statement is if the cube was 1 mile up, would people in the corners of a 1 mile square room see different sides? Watching a plane flyover suggests they would. Why would the moon be different at the same distance ratio? Not to mention what does the vanishing point have to do with this?

The distance ratios you are proposing DO however fit much closer to the numbers proposed by RE. The moon is 238,857 miles away. The longest distance between two observers who should be able to see it is approx. 12,000 miles. That's roughly a viewing difference of 3 degrees. Not even comparable to the FE hypothesis.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2017, 09:16:57 PM »
If the moon were 3000 miles up and moved 17 miles, it would still be pretty much directly overhead just like moving 30feet under a rubix cube a mile up.

Offline Blart

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2017, 09:18:26 PM »
Forgive me guys im very new to this FE stuff but all the models ive ever seen put the Sun and Moon very low over the flat Earth which made me think of the obvious flaw of people seeing completley opposite sides of a ball as it goes past. Can this debait go on without figures of size, Altitude, Size of the flat Earth?

Offline Blart

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2017, 09:24:00 PM »
The size of the Moon can be fairly well guestamated by a layman by the size of its craters.
Any mpacts big enough to move it 'Would have moved it' or deformed it so we know by looking at the Moons craters and the craters "Blast radius" the rough size of it.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2017, 01:54:58 AM »
The size of the Moon can be fairly well guestamated by a layman by the size of its craters.
Any mpacts big enough to move it 'Would have moved it' or deformed it so we know by looking at the Moons craters and the craters "Blast radius" the rough size of it.
You have a formula for all that?  What do you "guestimate" the diameter to be?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2017, 02:13:27 PM »
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

I agree
A person below the Moon would see the bottom. Two people far apart would get a 45 degree view and so 90 degrees difference to them . Theres absolutely no way all three of them would see the same view of the Moon. Altitude of the Moon makes no difference. The angles narrow down but its impossible physically for everyone to see the same side. Especially with a good old telescope. I was hoping for a good answer to this one.

Lets go back to the rubix cube example. The rubix cube is suspended 1 mile in the air and the people in the room, standing at every corner of the 30 foot by 30 foot room, will all see the same white underside of the rubix cube when they look upwards. No one is really disagreeing with this.

We do not know what relationship perspective will scale at, but to showcase a simple example of how it could all be possible, let us take that relationship and imagine that it is linear and multiply by 3000. The rubix cube is now 3000 miles (1 x 3000) in the air and instead of a 30 foot long room we have a 90,000 foot long room (30 x 3000). 90,000 feet is over 17 miles, which is more than the distance to the horizon's vanishing point near sea level. This means that the rubix cube could travel from overhead to the vanishing point and rotate less than it would if it were 1 mile in height and moving across 30 feet.

That is just one example for how perspective could scale. There are other possibilities which might result in a different outcome (imagining that the relationship is continuous like the Ancient Greeks did, for example), but since there is no available research on the maximums of perspective theory, we are not permitted to say how distant bodies will appear to the observer.
But we're not talking about that small of a relationship. 1 mile compared to 30 feet isn't what's being discussed. The moon can be seen from two people more than 5,000 miles apart. If the moon were 3,000 miles up, why would they not see vastly different views of the moon? For your Rubiks cube, a more accurate statement is if the cube was 1 mile up, would people in the corners of a 1 mile square room see different sides? Watching a plane flyover suggests they would. Why would the moon be different at the same distance ratio? Not to mention what does the vanishing point have to do with this?

The distance ratios you are proposing DO however fit much closer to the numbers proposed by RE. The moon is 238,857 miles away. The longest distance between two observers who should be able to see it is approx. 12,000 miles. That's roughly a viewing difference of 3 degrees. Not even comparable to the FE hypothesis.

Again, we have no idea how perspective works at larger scales. One could easily claim that perspective scales repressively and slows down to an increasingly infinitesimal pace with increased distance, and that theory would be just as accurate as the theories of the Ancient Greeks who have neglected to provide evidence for the maximums of perspective theory.

Offline Blart

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2017, 02:24:17 PM »
The size of the Moon can be fairly well guestamated by a layman by the size of its craters.
Any mpacts big enough to move it 'Would have moved it' or deformed it so we know by looking at the Moons craters and the craters "Blast radius" the rough size of it.
You have a formula for all that?  What do you "guestimate" the diameter to be?

A Guestamation of the Moons size going by Crater size and Blast radius (Which is still there) and Shadows cast from Craters brings the Moon close to 3500Km in diameter. This Guestamation puts its distance from us at around 390,000- 410,000 Kms away from us. using discrepancy...  Whats your best guess at its distance?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 02:40:57 PM by Blart »

*

Offline Romuotik

  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Do not be as paper surrendering to everything that
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2017, 08:49:31 PM »
When the Moon is over the Equator on FE
How is it that peope in both hemispheres see the same face of the moon and in fact everyone including people in a position that the moon is travelling to see the same face as the moon as people that observe the moon as it has past over head.

All those people at the same time see the same face of the moon. How does FE explain this.
Thanks.

The answer to this question is simple.
Because the moon above us is not next to us
When something is above us, we see nothing but one face. But if we move as he moves, and his position is nearby, we will see many aspects to him.
The truth is that the moon is above us and not next to us
[/font][/size][/color]
" Do not be as paper surrendering to everything that is written on your surface "

Romuotik

Offline Hmmm

  • *
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2017, 12:06:12 AM »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2017, 07:08:04 PM »
That was merely an example of possibility, not an actual figure. There is a lack of research on the maximums of perspective theory and it is quite possible that it may scale or operate differently than the scenario I invented on the spot.

Here is proof you are wrong.  Assume 3 people standing on a line where the center is roughly under "your" 3000-mile high moon that's 32 miles in diameter.   I made my line 2627 miles as that was a random drag across the USA in Google Earth (but that's not relevant)  This diagram proves that someone on each end and one in the middle would see 3 totally different views of the moon.  Since we know that's not possible we know the moon is not 3000 miles high.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.