[İntikam]

The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.

The angel of sun-moon-earth direction  continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.

You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes?  This....does not match my experience.  On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night.  I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision.  For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.

surely surely. everything is a great chance isin't it? But i don't believe the chance. 

[rabinoz]

The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.

The angel of sun-moon-earth direction  continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.

You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes?  This....does not match my experience.  On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night.  I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision.  For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.

surely surely. everything is a great chance isin't it? But i don't believe the chance. 

It's not a matter of chance! But the sun, earth and moon are only perfectly aligned for an instant, yet we see what looks close enough to a full moon all night!
Even on the day before and the day after a full moon it is difficult to tell that the moon is not perfectly full - other than with a good telescope.

Does the flat earth have a better explanation. I have never seen one!

[İntikam]

The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.

The angel of sun-moon-earth direction  continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.

You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes?  This....does not match my experience.  On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night.  I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision.  For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.

surely surely. everything is a great chance isin't it? But i don't believe the chance. 

It's not a matter of chance! But the sun, earth and moon are only perfectly aligned for an instant, yet we see what looks close enough to a full moon all night!
Even on the day before and the day after a full moon it is difficult to tell that the moon is not perfectly full - other than with a good telescope.

Does the flat earth have a better explanation. I have never seen one!

If the framework is true, then the sun and moon must move with a way completely synchronized each other. As we know that they aren't moving  synchronized the sun and moon.

I want to show anything different:

This is the position of moon how is it seems on different places at tonight.

This is Istanbul which place here i am.

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul



This is London:

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london



This is South Africa



Moon illuminated percent about %24.3 in London, Istanbul and South Africa.

At last this is New York "the other side" of the World. About opposite to Istanbul.



As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.

ABOUT FE's and moon

You know i'm believing the moon has own light and differently than the other FEs. I'm acting like these because i'm believing that moon in the arabic "kamer" means same time as a camera. So i'm thinking that moon is a camera that opening lens and closing lens continuesly.

Click to the link and then click to "listen" it. https://translate.google.com/?hl=tr#en/ar/moon

Did you see "al camera?". In arabic "al" like "the". So "al camera" means: "the moon".  If you listen the translation it says "al qamarou". But it always on the quran as this form: "al camera". And the "kamer" in Turkish is "moon" too. (the moon). Peoples usually don't care about the tiny points like this.

Click to see / listen how the "kamer" is meaning of the "moon" in Turkish.

https://translate.google.com/?hl=tr#tr/en/kamer

But as you know that i don't believe the chance.

[thatsnice]

As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.

I don't think you understand how the moon works, sir. The moon goes around the earth in synodic orbit, every 29.5 days, cycling through all it's phases in this period. As the earth rotates, it would appear to be the same shape and relative "percentage" of the moon illuminated, however according to your position above or below the equator, it would appear rotated around the face, hence the same shape and percentage. The moon phase does not change throughout the night! Also, the reason that the moon phase isn't different depending on your position because the moon is VERY far away, your relative position on the earth would not matter in relation to the distance from the moon to the sun. The reason a full moon is rarer than you would think is because it only happens approximately every 29.5 days;only when the inclination of the moon allows for it, as the moon's orbit itself rotates about the polar axis.

Two possibilities of the moon's crossing of the earth:



Change of the moon's orbit(apsidal procession):

[İntikam]

As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.

I don't think you understand how the moon works, sir. The moon goes around the earth in synodic orbit, every 29.5 days, cycling through all it's phases in this period. As the earth rotates, it would appear to be the same shape and relative "percentage" of the moon illuminated, however according to your position above or below the equator, it would appear rotated around the face, hence the same shape and percentage. The moon phase does not change throughout the night! Also, the reason that the moon phase isn't different depending on your position because the moon is VERY far away, your relative position on the earth would not matter in relation to the distance from the moon to the sun. The reason a full moon is rarer than you would think is because it only happens approximately every 29.5 days;only when the inclination of the moon allows for it, as the moon's orbit itself rotates about the polar axis.

Two possibilities of the moon's crossing of the earth:



Change of the moon's orbit(apsidal procession):

I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing. Because if it far away is not important for us because we're looking the "angle from earth". If the angle is 45 degrees then is it far away or close to us means same: It is at 45 degrees angle. 

Anyway.

Look these cities for what i'll say.

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/usa/los-angeles
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/japan/tokyo
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/china/beijing
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/sydney
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/south-africa/cape-town
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/chile/chillan

Now i'm doing a table take care here:

CITY NAME / SUN ALTITUDE  / MOON PERCENT ILLUMINATED

Istanbul 43 ° 17.5%
London 21° 17.5%
Los Angeles -47° 17.5%
Tokyo 30° 17.5%
Beijing 47° 17.5%
Sydney 2° 17.5%
Cape Town 17° 17.5%
Chillán (Chile) -54° 17.6%

You are saying that sun altitude is continuesly changing but moon percent illuminated continuesly same. You done a modelling to prove this. We are talking about a 3d world and everything is big and far away. So this impossible to think the system how perfect that you drawn.

should I believe any of this bullshit?

You are drawing this. Yes it is full moon but the earth and moon are rotating so the angle of the sunlight coming is continuesly changing a different way. How is it continue to see it full moon? It is impossible. Don't defend these nonsences.

[thatsnice]

I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing. Because if it far away is not important for us because we're looking the "angle from earth". If the angle is 45 degrees then is it far away or close to us means same: It is at 45 degrees angle. 

Well, you don't understand how trigonometry works. One's distance relative to the moon due to the rotation of the earth doesn't matter because the distance from one side of the earth to the other is negligible compared to the distance to the moon. From any observer on the night side of the earth, you are not seeing the moon from a different angle(it's not visible, it's like a 6 minute change) that's why the percent of the moon illuminated is the same for every city. Also, on a flat earth, that percentage would change throughout the night, so you don't make a strong point for your case.

Anyway.

Look these cities for what i'll say.

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/usa/los-angeles
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/japan/tokyo
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/china/beijing
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/sydney
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/south-africa/cape-town
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/chile/chillan

Now i'm doing a table take care here:

CITY NAME / SUN ALTITUDE  / MOON PERCENT ILLUMINATED

Istanbul 43 ° 17.5%
London 21° 17.5%
Los Angeles -47° 17.5%
Tokyo 30° 17.5%
Beijing 47° 17.5%
Sydney 2° 17.5%
Cape Town 17° 17.5%
Chillán (Chile) -54° 17.6%

You are saying that sun altitude is continuesly changing but moon percent illuminated continuesly same. You done a modelling to prove this. We are talking about a 3d world and everything is big and far away. So this impossible to think the system how perfect that you drawn.

The positions of the moon and sun relative to each other are not changing significantly. The earth is just rotating, that's why it seems to "change altitude. I hope you begin to understand that soon.

should I believe any of this bullshit?

Yes!

You are drawing this. Yes it is full moon but the earth and moon are rotating so the angle of the sunlight coming is continuesly changing a different way. How is it continue to see it full moon? It is impossible. Don't defend these nonsences.

This hurts to read. The moon rotates at the almost same speed it goes around the earth (Most likely due to the fact that it came from the earth, and therefore has an opposite, equal spin) so we primarily see the same side, with a little wobbling. How does the rotation of the earth or the moon have anything to do with the light shining on the moon anyway? That would depend on the revolutionary position. Also, yeah the moon is constantly moving around the earth, but it's moving very slowly, so you wouldn't detect any change in the phase of the moon in one night. Think about it like this, you have two spheres, you paint one half of one and put it on the ground. You put a dot on a point on the other one. Put the one with a dot on the ground far away from the other and turn it. The ball you are turning won't affect the "phase" of the other one, it will appear the same regardless of the rotation.

[Rounder]

I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing.

It actually means EVERYTHING.  The distance between Moon and Istanbul is effectively the same as the distance between Moon and Sydney, or the Moon and Tokyo.  This means that the light of the Moon should be no different at those places, because the light is travelling the same distance, subject to the same inverse-square law. 

Also important to note: that drawing of sun, earth, and moon is not to scale.  That drawing shows a ridiculously close moon, which would occupy an enormous amount of sky if that's where it really orbited.  ThatsNice chose that drawing, no doubt, so as to have a moon large enough to see it for the purpose of illustrating the lunar phases.  Here is a scale drawing to illustrate lunar distance:



See how tiny the moon is?  See how far away?  The difference in distance between lunar Apogee and lunar Perigee is almost eight times the largest possible distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth, which means that the distances between cities on earth is insignificant.  And the difference in distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth is only 2% of the shortest possible earth-moon distance, not enough to make a visible difference in the moonlight at those two locations.

[thatsnice]

I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing.

It actually means EVERYTHING.  The distance between Moon and Istanbul is effectively the same as the distance between Moon and Sydney, or the Moon and Tokyo.  This means that the light of the Moon should be no different at those places, because the light is travelling the same distance, subject to the same inverse-square law. 

Also important to note: that drawing of sun, earth, and moon is not to scale.  That drawing shows a ridiculously close moon, which would occupy an enormous amount of sky if that's where it really orbited.  ThatsNice chose that drawing, no doubt, so as to have a moon large enough to see it for the purpose of illustrating the lunar phases.  Here is a scale drawing to illustrate lunar distance:



See how tiny the moon is?  See how far away?  The difference in distance between lunar Apogee and lunar Perigee is almost eight times the largest possible distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth, which means that the distances between cities on earth is insignificant.  And the difference in distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth is only 2% of the shortest possible earth-moon distance, not enough to make a visible difference in the moonlight at those two locations.

Excellent explanation! I would like to add to it in the case that Intikam asks about other things such as that "inclination band", however. The "inclination band" in this illustration is the area where the moon could be as it is not exactly horizontal to the earth, it is 5.2 degrees diagonal. As the moon goes around the earth, a full moon happens when it is higher than or lower than the earth in that band, a lunar eclipse happens when it is behind the earth, or dead center of that band. The moon's position in it changes due to lunar orbital precession, or apsidal precession, as I had stated before. The moon's orbit "turns" due to precessional force, making one full rotation every 8.5 or so years. This means it intersects with the "inclination band" differently every time it goes around every 29.5 days, sometimes up or down(full moon), sometimes close to the center(partial lunar eclipse), sometimes in the center(total lunar eclipse). Hope that helps more

[Rounder]

Same is true on the sunward side as well.

A.  Usually the moon passes the sunward point above or below the center of the band and we have a New Moon without an eclipse, as the moon's shadow passes above the North pole or below the south pole
B.  Sometimes it passes the sunward point in or near the middle of the band and we get some form of Solar Eclipse:
       1.  If it passes above or below dead-center, we get a partial eclipse
       2.  If it passes dead center and near Apogee (farther from earth) with get an annular eclipse
       3.  If it passes dead center closer to perigee (nearer to earth) we get a total eclipse.  The closer to earth, the wider the shadow.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.

[thatsnice]

Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.

Well, this is just a coincidental as the sun and the moon being the same distance away and the same size. What is your argument?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.

Well, this is just a coincidental as the sun and the moon being the same distance away and the same size. What is your argument?

I have no argument. They would literally just be as they appear to be. Also the moon would revolve around the sky the same direction as the sun as it apparently does, and not in the opposite direction according to heliocentric theory.

We wouldn't coincidentally be in the only habitable zone of our solar system either. The axis wouldn't be coincidentally tilted just perfectly for us to experience seasons. The stars wouldn't be coincidentally so far away that their position remains relatively unchanged throughout the 583 million mile trip around the sun.

And most of all, not entirely related to heliocentrism but more so big bang hypothesis, we wouldn't coincidentally have sprung up from inorganic matter to become living, breathing, sentient, conscious beings either.

[thatsnice]

Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.

Well, this is just a coincidental as the sun and the moon being the same distance away and the same size. What is your argument?

We wouldn't coincidentally be in the only habitable zone of our solar system either. The axis wouldn't be coincidentally tilted just perfectly for us to experience seasons. The stars wouldn't be coincidentally so far away that their position remains relatively unchanged throughout the 583 million mile trip around the sun.

I can't really say much else about the other things you said as those are your beliefs, and you're entitled to them. However, this part is a flawed argument.  You can't argue coincidence that out planet it perfect for habitable life. Out of the billions upon billions of planets that are observable or predicted, statistics dictate that the perfect condition for life is likely for at least one. Imagine that earth were not habitable to begin with: it's more than likely that we would come about on some other planet rather than just not exist at all. Earth happened to be a habitable planet, so life evolved. If it were a coincidence, it would be that life evolved everywhere and earth just so HAPPENED to be habitable for us as a culture. It is the other way around: its habitability caused life. 

[Venus]

The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.

The angel of sun-moon-earth direction  continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.

You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes?  This....does not match my experience.  On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night.  I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision.  For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.

surely surely. everything is a great chance isin't it? But i don't believe the chance. 

It's not a matter of chance! But the sun, earth and moon are only perfectly aligned for an instant, yet we see what looks close enough to a full moon all night!
Even on the day before and the day after a full moon it is difficult to tell that the moon is not perfectly full - other than with a good telescope.

Does the flat earth have a better explanation. I have never seen one!

If the framework is true, then the sun and moon must move with a way completely synchronized each other. As we know that they aren't moving  synchronized the sun and moon.

I want to show anything different:

This is the position of moon how is it seems on different places at tonight.

This is Istanbul which place here i am.

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul



This is London:

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london



This is South Africa



Moon illuminated percent about %24.3 in London, Istanbul and South Africa.

At last this is New York "the other side" of the World. About opposite to Istanbul.



As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.

ABOUT FE's and moon

You know i'm believing the moon has own light and differently than the other FEs. I'm acting like these because i'm believing that moon in the arabic "kamer" means same time as a camera. So i'm thinking that moon is a camera that opening lens and closing lens continuesly.

Click to the link and then click to "listen" it. https://translate.google.com/?hl=tr#en/ar/moon

Did you see "al camera?". In arabic "al" like "the". So "al camera" means: "the moon".  If you listen the translation it says "al qamarou". But it always on the quran as this form: "al camera". And the "kamer" in Turkish is "moon" too. (the moon). Peoples usually don't care about the tiny points like this.

Click to see / listen how the "kamer" is meaning of the "moon" in Turkish.

https://translate.google.com/?hl=tr#tr/en/kamer

But as you know that i don't believe the chance.

The shape of the sunlit part of the moon in Cape Town ... compared to the cities in the northern hemisphere ... BOOM !!! There is your proof of a spherical earth !!
This would NOT be possible if the earth was flat !!
http://thecreatorscalendar.com/wp-content/uploads/chart-hemispherex2.jpg

[Venus]

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

Sig'd.  What a beautiful statement of our aims.

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here.  The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.

In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM ».
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.

Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.

The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.

So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."

Flat Earth Sun Moon - original

Wide spacer

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

The reply I get was:

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.

But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.

At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.

Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote:

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!

Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.

you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.

Perhaps Tom could draw a diagram of what is meant by the wiki, seeing he doesn't think anyone else is capable !

[Tom Bishop]

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

Sig'd.  What a beautiful statement of our aims.

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here.  The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.

In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM ».
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.

Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.

The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.

So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."

Flat Earth Sun Moon - original

Wide spacer

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

The reply I get was:

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.

But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.

At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.

Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote:

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!

Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.

you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.

Perhaps Tom could draw a diagram of what is meant by the wiki, seeing he doesn't think anyone else is capable !

The diagram rainboz provided is a completely incorrect interpretation of perspective. See this video on the topic of these "side view" representations.

[rabinoz]

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

Sig'd.  What a beautiful statement of our aims.

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here.  The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.

In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM ».
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.

Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.

The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.

So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."

Flat Earth Sun Moon - original

Wide spacer

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

The reply I get was:

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.

But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.

At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.

Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote:

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!

Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.

you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.

Perhaps Tom could draw a diagram of what is meant by the wiki, seeing he doesn't think anyone else is capable !

The diagram rainboz provided is a completely incorrect interpretation of perspective. See this video on the topic of these "side view" representations.

Whatever has that video got to do with "How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?"

And from my point of view that video is completely erroneous in making the 3,000 mile height of the sun appear to fall to zero in only 10,000 miles or so.
In my post How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth « Reply #1 on: May 28, 2016, 04:19:52 AM ».
Rowbotham suggested that the "vanishing point" would be about 3,000 times the size of the object. I think that is "stretching it", but maybe my poor old eyes are wearing out! But, let's use Rowbotham's figure.

Now I was regarding the 3,000 miles from the sun to the ground as "an object", with a vanishing point a great distance away (9,000,000 miles).
No, I don't think that means anything either, but to say that the 3,000 mile height appears to vanish after only 10,000 miles is quite ridiculous. 

When I get a chance to catch up on things after a stint in hospital (no not the "funny farm") I'll try to explain further with some diagrams.

But, it is completely irrelevant in explaining how we might see a full moon.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The diagram rainboz provided is a completely incorrect interpretation of perspective. See this video on the topic of these "side view" representations.

<youtube video>

Rabinoz's diagram was fine. The "side view" angle corresponds to the apparent angle viewed from the person's perspective. You can easily verify that this is true by drawing a big triangle on a wall (use thumbtacks or bubblegum or something). Measure the angle from the side using a protractor, and then measure the apparent angle of the other corners from the perspective of one corner. They will be the same.

The person in the video has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.