The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: lookatmooninUKthenAUS on July 09, 2018, 08:28:14 PM

Title: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: lookatmooninUKthenAUS on July 09, 2018, 08:28:14 PM
OK....here goes....third time at this.

FET states the reason that the moon changes orientation when viewed from different locations is a perspective effect:

Quote
Q: Why does the orientation of the moon look the same to everyone one earth regardless of where they are?

A: It doesn't. The orientation varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

I have maintained in numerous posts that this is plainly wrong. Here are a few reasons:

1. Moving North to South in the arrow example assumes we can do the same with the moon. This would mean moving from one side of the moon to the other. In so doing we would pass underneath the moon and then be on the other 'dark side' of the moon. If we do not see this it is because the moon must be very far away. So distant that our location on Earth makes virtually no difference to our relative view. This is of course the real situation.

It is not possible to simultaneously be able to move around a round moon, viewing it from different sides without seeing those other sides. By definition being 'on the other side' implies seeing the 'other side' of something. The fact that we only ever see one side of the moon is because the moon is very far away in terms of the dimensions of the Earths surface. But this of course precludes the perspective effect suggested in the green arrow example.

I am still waiting for a Flat Earther to explain the flaw in this logic. I have been asked to read the FE theory on this matter but the entire FE theory as pertains to the orientation of the moon is contained in the quote above. Unless their are 'other FE theories out there. That seems to happen alot!



Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 09, 2018, 08:37:20 PM
1. Moving North to South in the arrow example assumes we can do the same with the moon. This would mean moving from one side of the moon to the other. In so doing we would pass underneath the moon and then be on the other 'dark side' of the moon. If we do not see this it is because the moon must be very far away. So distant that our location on Earth makes virtually no difference to our relative view. This is of course the real situation.

It is not possible to simultaneously be able to move around a round moon, viewing it from different sides without seeing those other sides. By definition being 'on the other side' implies seeing the 'other side' of something. The fact that we only ever see one side of the moon is because the moon is very far away in terms of the dimensions of the Earths surface. But this of course precludes the perspective effect suggested in the green arrow example
Let's take a step back because it's really not clear what you're trying to get at.

(https://www.usmint.gov/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-lincoln-penny-uncirculated-obverse-philadelphia.jpg)

Let's say this coin is taped to your ceiling. From where you're standing you can look up and see it, but you're some way past the top of Lincoln's head. Then you walk forwards, pass it, and now you're standing under where Lincoln's body would be.

What is it that you expect to see, what is the contradiction in your mind?
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 09, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Let's say this coin is taped to your ceiling. From where you're standing you can look up and see it, but you're some way past the top of Lincoln's head. Then you walk forwards, pass it, and now you're standing under where Lincoln's body would be.

What is it that you expect to see, what is the contradiction in your mind?

1. Past the top of Lincoln's head, looking up at the penny on the ceiling:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/xmquqb.jpg)

2. Walking forward, looking up at the penny on the ceiling:
 
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/97qtyt.jpg)

3. Walking forward more, past the spot below the penny on the ceiling, bending backwards to see it on the ceiling:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/10yj285.jpg)

4. Turning around to look up at the penny without having to bend over backwards:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/51vbky.jpg)

5. Walking forward, back to the spot below the penny on the ceiling:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/sbm0hz.jpg)

6. Walking forward back to your original spot, but bending backwards to see the penny on the ceiling:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/29engud.jpg)

7. Turning around to view the penny from your original spot without having to bend over backwards:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/xmquqb.jpg)


That's what I'd expect to see.

Now, how would you explain if from 1-3 and 7, the penny always looked like this:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/97qtyt.jpg)

And from 4-6, it always looked like this:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/sbm0hz.jpg)

There are two prevalent Flat Earth answers:

One is that Perspective somehow accounts for the unchanging appearance. That's what the OP is addressing.

Another is that given the distances involved, something called Electromagnetic Accelerator is bending light upwards, altering what you'd think you'd see on a flat surface.

There's a third, less prevalent answer and that is the appearance DOES change as one would expect and neither of the first two explanations are necessary. That might be what your position would be, in which case you don't need to argue with the opening post since it's not addressing that.

Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 09, 2018, 10:08:30 PM
Edit: Nevermind
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 10, 2018, 12:44:46 AM
But that's orientation in just one axis.

What I believe the opening post is getting at is the explanation for orientation in a different axis:

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zdsldc.jpg)
I don't know if that's what the OP was asking after, the "It is not possible to simultaneously be able to move around a round moon, viewing it from different sides without seeing those other sides. By definition being 'on the other side' implies seeing the 'other side' of something," just thoroughly confuses me.
On yours, my answer would be mostly analogous to the EAT situation, but I don't want to go into too much detail as I'm trying to see what it is the OP means. If it's their third time posting this (looks like the others were bound for AR) I want to make sure they get their answer, I know firsthand how frustrating it can be when a question gets ignored.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 10, 2018, 12:50:29 AM
You're right. The topic question isn't about the "rolling" of the moon, which has been the focus of a different topic (currently residing in The Lounge (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9970.msg158515#msg158515)).

I'll edit that 2nd post of mine and butt out of this one, though I'm interested in the discussion.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 03:14:47 PM
Let's take a step back because it's really not clear what you're trying to get at.

IMG

Let's say this coin is taped to your ceiling. From where you're standing you can look up and see it, but you're some way past the top of Lincoln's head. Then you walk forwards, pass it, and now you're standing under where Lincoln's body would be.

What is it that you expect to see, what is the contradiction in your mind?

Let's take another step back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon)

I don't expect to see anything relevant by sticking a coin to the ceiling, as that's not analogous to the true situation.

There's no contradiction in my mind. The Moon is a globe, some 230k miles from Earth, which humankind has visited with manned and unmanned craft. My personal observations with my own telescope do not convince me otherwise. Assertions that "space travel is not real" just do not wash with me, without some firm proof to back them up.   
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 10, 2018, 04:24:33 PM
Let's take a step back because it's really not clear what you're trying to get at.

IMG

Let's say this coin is taped to your ceiling. From where you're standing you can look up and see it, but you're some way past the top of Lincoln's head. Then you walk forwards, pass it, and now you're standing under where Lincoln's body would be.

What is it that you expect to see, what is the contradiction in your mind?

Let's take another step back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon)

I don't expect to see anything relevant by sticking a coin to the ceiling, as that's not analogous to the true situation.

There's no contradiction in my mind. The Moon is a globe, some 230k miles from Earth, which humankind has visited with manned and unmanned craft. My personal observations with my own telescope do not convince me otherwise. Assertions that "space travel is not real" just do not wash with me, without some firm proof to back them up.
I am asking the OP about a specific argument. I'm sure there are dozens of other threads that have been made about space travel, and you're perfectly capable of making your own. I don't bring my issues with RET up when they're only tangentially relevant to the subject of the thread, try doing the same.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 04:44:46 PM
I am asking the OP about a specific argument. I'm sure there are dozens of other threads that have been made about space travel, and you're perfectly capable of making your own. I don't bring my issues with RET up when they're only tangentially relevant to the subject of the thread, try doing the same.

The argument is moot, though, if the Moon is evidently not a flat item equivalent to a coin. There is no "orientation dilemma". 

You can't divorce space travel from a discussion about the appearance of the Moon, when space travel has been all around it and shows you the shape of it and its appearance from multiple angles, surely?
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 10, 2018, 04:46:42 PM
I am asking the OP about a specific argument. I'm sure there are dozens of other threads that have been made about space travel, and you're perfectly capable of making your own. I don't bring my issues with RET up when they're only tangentially relevant to the subject of the thread, try doing the same.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 04:51:23 PM
I don't know if that's what the OP was asking after, the "It is not possible to simultaneously be able to move around a round moon, viewing it from different sides without seeing those other sides. By definition being 'on the other side' implies seeing the 'other side' of something," just thoroughly confuses me.

There you go, I can quote something with a highlight in bold too.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 05:12:38 PM
I am asking the OP about a specific argument.

So, in abbreviated form, the OP says;

This is what the Wiki says
(Wiki is quoted)
This (the Wiki) is wrong. This is why;

You can pass under an arrow on your ceiling, and then be on one side or the other of the arrow. You cannot do that with the Moon because the moon is far away. Our location on Earth makes virtually no difference to our view of the Moon. We always see the same side. This is the real situation.

(side note; the distance has been proven by travel to and from it, laser ranging, radio-wave ranging, observational techniques, and possibly other means.)

We cannot move around a globe moon without seeing a different side to that which we saw at our starting point. We only ever see one side of the moon.

(side note; This was shown to you in another thread, where I and others indicated the features)

This precludes the perspective effect suggested in the green arrow example.

The OP is waiting for a Flat Earther to explain the flaw in this logic.

===========================================

Your first response to the OP was "it's really not clear what you're trying to get at. "

So ....

Is it clear what I'm trying to get at?

If not, what do you find unclear?

If it is clear, what do you agree or disagree with?


I genuinely fail to see how you can discuss the shape of, orientation of, or other features of the Moon, without consideration of the last 59 years of lunar space travel.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 10, 2018, 05:14:51 PM
If you want to talk space travel, start a thread, I will not let you distract from trying to get a clear account of what someone is saying.

That's all I'm going to say until the OP returns.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 05:18:40 PM
If you want to talk space travel, start a thread, I will not let you distract from trying to get a clear account of what someone is saying. That's all I'm going to say until the OP returns.

So, you're going to ignore the questions in the first 90% of my post on the basis of what I said in the last 10%?

I know firsthand how frustrating it can be when a question gets ignored.

Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 10, 2018, 05:27:46 PM
If you want to talk space travel, start a thread, I will not let you distract from trying to get a clear account of what someone is saying. That's all I'm going to say until the OP returns.

So, you're going to ignore the questions in the first 90% of my post on the basis of what I said in the last 10%?

I know firsthand how frustrating it can be when a question gets ignored.
What question? You said we only saw the same side of the moon, which I agree with and which the wiki agrees with, and which is kinda key to the whole question I asked the OP. That's not a question.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: lookatmooninUKthenAUS on July 10, 2018, 07:30:56 PM
Tumeni put it very well. But I will reiterate in my own fashion. I will pose it as a series of yes/no answers directed at any flat earther that cares to follow the logic:

Q1. In essence the FE wiki argues that the rotation of the moon we see is a perspective effect? Y/N

Q2. The example given is of walking TO THE OTHER SIDE OF A GREEN ARROW. (The wiki is very clear about the OTHER SIDE part)? Y/N

Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

Q4. This of course does not happen and we do not ever see the back side (or any other side) of the moon? Y/N

Q5. The reason is the moon is very far away? Y/N

Q6. The coin example and the arrow example are good examples of the perspective effect. But this cannot happen with the moon because we would need to pass to the other side of the moon and in so doing we would be looking at a completely different side of the moon? Y/N

So, as I understand this part of the theory, there is a conflict of very basic logic here that cannot be resolved. In which case, a fundamental part of the FE theory is clearly wrong. Unless the orientation of the moon can be explained for a FE model we need go no further with it. In fact, scientific logic demands that we go no further with it. The observations are too important and too clear to be ignored. There is no ambiguity.

Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 10, 2018, 07:48:36 PM
1 Y, 2 Y, 3 N, 4 Y, 5 Y/N, 6 N

5 depends on your definition of far away, but the rest is utter rubbish and I can see why the last threads ended up in AR and fully expect this one to go the same way. Can't believe I thought you were making an actual point.
Look at the coin. By your logic standing over the head then walking to stand under it somehow shows you tails.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: MCToon on July 10, 2018, 08:33:48 PM

Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N


I think Q3 is the point of confusion.

With the penny on the ceiling near the center of the room.  Stand on one side of the room so that the penny appears to be right side up.  Then walk to the opposite side of the room, not the opposite side of the penny.  Do not bend over backwards, this will require you to turn around while you go to the other side of the room.  It will appear upside down.

Both FET and RET predict the moon to appear rotated when viewing from the northern hemi(spere/plane) versus the southern hemi(sphere/plane).

I see no dilemma with orientation.

I see problems with lunar angular size, distance, shape, illumination, position, phases, eclipses, and other topics discussed on other threads, but orientation doesn't seem to be an issue.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 11:11:52 PM
Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

JRowe replies 'N'

Why?

If you suspend a sports ball with a small logo from your ceiling, and align it so that from one side of the room it is facing toward you, then without moving the ball, go to the other side of the room, can you still see the logo, or are you looking at the other side of the ball?
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 10, 2018, 11:14:38 PM
Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

JRowe replies 'N'

Why?

If you suspend a sports ball with a small logo from your ceiling, and align it so that from one side of the room it is facing toward you, then without moving the ball, go to the other side of the room, can you still see the logo, or are you looking at the other side of the ball?
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 11:44:48 PM
Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

JRowe replies 'N'

Why?

If you suspend a sports ball with a small logo from your ceiling, and align it so that from one side of the room it is facing toward you, then without moving the ball, go to the other side of the room, can you still see the logo, or are you looking at the other side of the ball?
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?

So, again, you're not going to answer the question in the earlier part of my post, but just respond to the last line?

You replied N to Q3. I asked why. Can you answer? Will you answer?
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 11:48:53 PM
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?

Already discussed, from reply #2 onward.

We've already been through "If we put A on the ceiling, and walk, what do we see?", and discussed what is expected.

I now ask "If you put B on the ceiling, what would you see?", and you say

"What if it's not B on the ceiling, but A?"

Why? Why are you trying to avoid the question?
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: JRowe on July 10, 2018, 11:54:44 PM
Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

JRowe replies 'N'

Why?

If you suspend a sports ball with a small logo from your ceiling, and align it so that from one side of the room it is facing toward you, then without moving the ball, go to the other side of the room, can you still see the logo, or are you looking at the other side of the ball?
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?

So, again, you're not going to answer the question in the earlier part of my post, but just respond to the last line?

You replied N to Q3. I asked why. Can you answer? Will you answer?
Reply to what?! The:

Quote
JRowe replies 'N'

Why?
You want the answer to that? Easy. It isn't a sports ball, it's a penny. Why would I give a damn what happens when there's a sports ball? Next up, what happens when the moon is precisely the shape of a keyboard-playing cat.

Try thinking about the answers you get rather than defaulting to "An FEer said it, it must be wrong and I must poke every hole I can in it!" It's really a tiresome habit of REers.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 11, 2018, 03:17:25 AM
You want the answer to that? Easy. It isn't a sports ball, it's a penny. Why would I give a damn what happens when there's a sports ball? Next up, what happens when the moon is precisely the shape of a keyboard-playing cat.

Try thinking about the answers you get rather than defaulting to "An FEer said it, it must be wrong and I must poke every hole I can in it!" It's really a tiresome habit of REers.
\

The problem, JRowe, is that the OP is focused on and questioning TFES.org's wiki, which DOES say the moon is a sphere, as in a "sports ball" and not a "penny."

If you're going to contest what the opening post is deriving what a FE view of the moon is, then you kind of need to do so within the context of the FE view being challenged. You're imparting your own FE version of the moon on the opening post, and that's confusing.

Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 11, 2018, 07:56:16 AM
Reply to what?! The:

Quote
JRowe replies 'N'. Why?
You want the answer to that? Easy. It isn't a sports ball, it's a penny.

Prove it. Provide some evidence that the Moon in the sky, which has been landed upon and orbited since 1959, is not a globe. All the people who have been around it and on it, all the unmanned craft which have been around it and on it, all the data returned by both, all confirm it to be a globe, as does every astronomer who has ever observed it. The mapping of the far side confirms it so.

Why would I give a damn what happens when there's a sports ball?

Why would anyone give a damn for your penny, when all the actual evidence says that the Moon is more of a sports ball than a penny?

Why would anyone give a damn for a discussion of the Moon based on the assumption it's a penny, when the evidence clearly makes that discussion moot?
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: MCToon on July 11, 2018, 05:02:19 PM
Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

JRowe replies 'N'

Why?

If you suspend a sports ball with a small logo from your ceiling, and align it so that from one side of the room it is facing toward you, then without moving the ball, go to the other side of the room, can you still see the logo, or are you looking at the other side of the ball?
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?

This thread pertains to it's orientation.  The orientation question has the same answer wether it's a penny or a ball.  On the other side of the room will you see it's orientation upside down?

The prediction for both RET and FET is the same: you will see it oriented upside down on the other side of the room.

Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: lookatmooninUKthenAUS on July 13, 2018, 08:16:00 PM
I keep struggling to parse the logic of this situation so unbelievably simply that everyone can get it. I simply cannot understand why the essential point of what I am pointing out keeps getting missed.

One more attempt......

If the green arrow in the wiki was to be replaced by a model that more accurately represented the moon e.g. a small globe with 'x' on one side and 'y' on the other and 'Z' on the bottom, and you were to move from 50 ft south to 50 ft North, looking all the time at the globe as you went.

1) As in the green arrow example you would pass underneath and then to the other side of the globe? Y/N

2) No matter what angle or manner you observed the globe (upside down / over your shoulder) you would see a X a Z and then a Y? Y/N

3) This is incompatible with the wiki which predicts you would see the same face at all times? Y/N

4) So, travelling to the OTHER SIDE can cause rotating perspective effects but since this necessitates seeing different faces of a spherical object and we do not see this with the moon, it cannot be the explanation for the rotation we DO see when viewing the moon? Y/N

Phew, this is getting really tedious. Please answer the questions in turn flat Earthers and if you state No for any you must explain how this can be possible in the context of the examples given.

Note, we can see now that the arrow example is invalid as an example as it limits the discussion to 2 dimensions when the real situation demands we consider 3, as in for things that can have x,y,z components or 'backs, fronts and sides'. Such limited examples, as are frequently employed by FE theory, are useful if you are trying to seed doubt among people with a limited grasp of spatial logic but totally invalid as soon as an accurate analysis is applied.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: MCToon on July 13, 2018, 10:18:24 PM
I keep struggling to parse the logic of this situation so unbelievably simply that everyone can get it. I simply cannot understand why the essential point of what I am pointing out keeps getting missed.

One more attempt......

If the green arrow in the wiki was to be replaced by a model that more accurately represented the moon e.g. a small globe with 'x' on one side and 'y' on the other and 'Z' on the bottom, and you were to move from 50 ft south to 50 ft North, looking all the time at the globe as you went.

1) As in the green arrow example you would pass underneath and then to the other side of the globe? Y/N

2) No matter what angle or manner you observed the globe (upside down / over your shoulder) you would see a X a Z and then a Y? Y/N

3) This is incompatible with the wiki which predicts you would see the same face at all times? Y/N

4) So, travelling to the OTHER SIDE can cause rotating perspective effects but since this necessitates seeing different faces of a spherical object and we do not see this with the moon, it cannot be the explanation for the rotation we DO see when viewing the moon? Y/N

Phew, this is getting really tedious. Please answer the questions in turn flat Earthers and if you state No for any you must explain how this can be possible in the context of the examples given.

Note, we can see now that the arrow example is invalid as an example as it limits the discussion to 2 dimensions when the real situation demands we consider 3, as in for things that can have x,y,z components or 'backs, fronts and sides'. Such limited examples, as are frequently employed by FE theory, are useful if you are trying to seed doubt among people with a limited grasp of spatial logic but totally invalid as soon as an accurate analysis is applied.

I think I'm getting it now.  It's not just the orientation you are talking about, it's the visible part of the moon.  Yes, I see the issue.  I'll put on my FE hat and give my answers.


1) Y
2) Y
3) Y with a caveat below
4) N


Caveat for #3: The model where there is a small globe on the ceiling places the viewed globe close to the observer.  As the globe moves farther away from the observer there will be less changes to the visible portion of the face.  I believe the technical term for this is "libration" from the Libration wiki.  The distance between the viewer and the globe is important.  If the globe is very far away and the distance you travel is relatively small, you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

Reason for N for #4.  As you walk from one side to the other of the room and pass under the ball/moon you will be looking directly up.  As you continue to walk, is will be difficult to continue to see the ball/moon without turning around.  When you turn around the orientation of the ball/moon will be rotated.


Predictions for a round earth:
Assume the moon is over the equator.  Viewer 1 is in the northern hemisphere at 45 degrees north.  Viewer 2 is in the southern hemisphere at 45 degrees south.  The viewers will see the orientation of the moon to be opposite from each other.  They will also see slightly different portions of the face of the moon.  As the RE model has concrete numbers for the size and distance of the moon these numbers are calculable.  To the best of my knowledge, these calculations match observations.

Predictions for a flat earth:
Assume the moon is over the equator.  Viewer 1 is in the northern hemiplane at 45 degrees north.  Viewer 2 is in the southern hemiplane at 45 degrees south.  The viewers will see the orientation of the moon to be opposite from each other.  They will also see slightly different portions of the face of the moon.  The exact different amount depending on the size of the moon and how high it is.  As there are not well agreed upon moon size and distances these are difficult to calculate.


In either model the orientation of the moon is opposite for observers in northern versus southern vantage points.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: lookatmooninUKthenAUS on July 14, 2018, 10:41:34 AM
Quote
you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

No, you would not, and this is entirely my point. You can't and never do see the back (dark) side of the moon. Explain to me how it is possible to see the back side of ANY object simply by virtue of your distance from it. Light travels in straight lines and reflects only off the surface presented to the sun and Earth.

If it is possible to see the underside and backside of an object by viewing at different distances this must be a regular phenomenon in nature. Please can you cite a single example where this occurs.

Quote
Reason for N for #4.  As you walk from one side to the other of the room and pass under the ball/moon you will be looking directly up.  As you continue to walk, is will be difficult to continue to see the ball/moon without turning around.  When you turn around the orientation of the ball/moon will be rotated.

There is no disagreement concerning how the rotation can occur. But you have failed yet again to explain how, for instance, as we 'pass under the ball/moon' we see its underside in the model BUT NOT WHEN VIEWING THE MOON. The answer to Q4 must therefor be 'yes'.

I am afraid I am not even going to look at the 'libration' wiki. It is not significant or relevant to the discussion we are having. This is absolutely classic FE tactics. We have a rock solid simple explanation for why the moon can rotate 180 degrees in our field of vision while FE must introduce red herrings and use logical contortions predicated on pure misunderstandings of simple optics and 3D space.

This is the end game. Nobody can adequately explain the rotation of the Earth using FE theory. It is utter, utter nonsense and without being able to explain this very simple observation THE ENTIRE THEORY FALLS DOWN. Do not pass go, do not collect £200, go directly back to the drawing board and start again.

Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 12:01:12 PM
Let's proceed from the assumption that the Moon is a globe. Numerous spacecraft have been documented to orbit it, men have
been documented to land on it, we have photos of the far side. So let's take that as a starting point.

This is a spherical wedge;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_wedge

Divide the globe up into four 90-degree wedges, and divide each at
the 'equator' to make four 'northern' wedge halves, and four 'southern'. With me so far?

At the surface, name the points where the arc of each wedge begins and ends.

I suggest the four points around the 'equator' be named 0, 90, 180, and 270 (running counter-clockwise when viewed from above), with the 'pole' points named 90N and 90S; this retains some commonality with textbook latitude and longitude indicators.

Now, if you hang this globe from the ceiling, with 0 toward you at your starting point, 90N to the top, and you remain upright, you see;

(https://i.imgur.com/jZA0rXq.jpg)

(whether you can see 90N or not will depend on how far below it you are)


If you are directly under this globe, you see;

(https://i.imgur.com/qUOo41l.jpg)

(The arrow indicates the direction you are moving in)



And once you have moved to the other side (and you have turned round to face back toward it), you see

(https://i.imgur.com/QwQzBHW.jpg)


Yes? No?

Points to note;
At your starting point, you cannot see 180.  Y/N?
At your midpoint, you cannot see 90N         Y/N?
At your finish point, you cannot see 0       Y/N?
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 04:29:20 PM
I keep struggling to parse the logic of this situation so unbelievably simply that everyone can get it. I simply cannot understand why the essential point of what I am pointing out keeps getting missed.

One more attempt......

If the green arrow in the wiki was to be replaced by a model that more accurately represented the moon e.g. a small globe with 'x' on one side and 'y' on the other and 'Z' on the bottom, and you were to move from 50 ft south to 50 ft North, looking all the time at the globe as you went.
How big is the moon globe?
How far away is the 100' perpendicular line from which I'd be viewing the moon globe from its ends?

To scale, if you're going to move +/- 50 ft perpendicularly to the small globe, then that globe would have to be 30' in diameter 3277' away to approximate viewing the moon from the extremes of earth. (Globe earth, that is.)

If you're using a 1 foot diameter small globe to simulate the moon, then place it 110 feet away and only move laterally about about 3.5' (+/- 1' 4"). That's how much of the "other side" of the moon you could see by reorienting yourself on the earth. If my math is right, that means if you were to look at the moon when it's at its zenith on your longitude from the furthest points north and south, you only see "around" the moon about an extra 35 miles of its circumference. This is approximate. Where the moon is in its eccentric orbit and where it is in its wobble will add or subtract to the angle, but my point is that the scale won't allow us to see much beyond the moon horizon we see straight on. We'd have to leave earth to see an X and Y painted on its "sides".

But how we move about on the earth and orient ourselves to  look at the moon, whether it's low on the horizon or directly overhead, that imaginary Z on the side facing us will always be facing us but appear to change orientation. The "flipping" will be due to how we orient ourselves to see the moon with respect to the nearest horizon, which will be different if we're south or north of the moon's declination. It "flips" because of how we would turn ourselves to orient the moon to the horizon.

But that Z will also do other things than just "flip" for that reason. It also tilts as the moon transits from moonrise to moonset. This "rolling" is due to something else, and it ought to be able to help us distinguish whether we're viewing it from a flat surface or a convex surface because that "rolling" will behave different depending on the kind of surface we are on and the mechanics of whether we're on a spinning globe with an orbiting moon, or a stationary flat plane with a sphere moon circling above it. They will not manifest the "rolling" orientation the same way.

But that's a different subject, distinct from this "flipping" orientation phenomenon; and it's one currently engaged in a topic that got moved to the Lounge. Back to the point here is that to model how we see the moon's orientation it has to be scaled correctly.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: alfred1 on July 16, 2018, 07:24:19 AM
I would have said that the ball is the same way up where ever you stand. It is you that has moved, not the ball. If the moon in southern hemisphere appears to the opposite way up the moon in the northern hemisphere then What way up does it appear to be on the equator? ???
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: Tumeni on July 16, 2018, 07:39:09 AM
I would have said that the ball is the same way up where ever you stand. It is you that has moved, not the ball. If the moon in southern hemisphere appears to the opposite way up the moon in the northern hemisphere then What way up does it appear to be on the equator? ???

Sideways. Although the extent will vary with the seasons, due to axial tilt.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: alfred1 on July 16, 2018, 07:41:59 AM
I would have said that the ball is the same way up where ever you stand. It is you that has moved, not the ball. If the moon in southern hemisphere appears to the opposite way up the moon in the northern hemisphere then What way up does it appear to be on the equator? ???

Sideways. Although the extent will vary with the seasons, due to axial tilt.
Thank you. That at least makes sense.
Title: Re: Moon's orientation dilema
Post by: MCToon on July 16, 2018, 09:03:48 PM
Quote
you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

The beginning of my sentence is critical for context:
Quote
If the globe is very far away and the distance you travel is relatively small, you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

No, you would not, and this is entirely my point. You can't and never do see the back (dark) side of the moon. Explain to me how it is possible to see the back side of ANY object simply by virtue of your distance from it. Light travels in straight lines and reflects only off the surface presented to the sun and Earth.

If it is possible to see the underside and backside of an object by viewing at different distances this must be a regular phenomenon in nature. Please can you cite a single example where this occurs.


True, I'm not considering the back side of the moon.   My image below will illustrate.


Quote
Reason for N for #4.  As you walk from one side to the other of the room and pass under the ball/moon you will be looking directly up.  As you continue to walk, is will be difficult to continue to see the ball/moon without turning around.  When you turn around the orientation of the ball/moon will be rotated.

There is no disagreement concerning how the rotation can occur. But you have failed yet again to explain how, for instance, as we 'pass under the ball/moon' we see its underside in the model BUT NOT WHEN VIEWING THE MOON. The answer to Q4 must therefor be 'yes'.

I am afraid I am not even going to look at the 'libration' wiki. It is not significant or relevant to the discussion we are having. This is absolutely classic FE tactics. We have a rock solid simple explanation for why the moon can rotate 180 degrees in our field of vision while FE must introduce red herrings and use logical contortions predicated on pure misunderstandings of simple optics and 3D space.

The libration part is not important to this discussion much.  Just trying to use correct terminology.

I have 2 images.  One with a close moon, one with a far moon.  Neither to scale.
(https://i.imgur.com/p8qBESU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/K3dqcY0.png)

I've placed X, Y and Z (in Comic Sans) on the moon, note that I placed X and Z slightly lower than the mid point.  Also, we have two mohawked observers, A and B (also with Comic Sans).

In the not-to-scale low moon example, Observer A can see Z and Y, observer B can see X and Y.  Observer A can also see a significant amount of the side of the moon above Z.  Observer B can also see a significant amount of the side of the moon above X.

In the not-to-scale high moon example, both observers can see X, Y and Z if the moon is high enough.  Neither can see significant amounts above X or Z.

The low moon image is similar to the FE model where the model predicts seeing significantly different portions of the moon for observers A and B at the same time.
The high moon image is similar to the RE model where the model predicts seeing nearly identical portions of the moon for observers A and B at the same time.

This is the end game. Nobody can adequately explain the rotation of the Earth using FE theory. It is utter, utter nonsense and without being able to explain this very simple observation THE ENTIRE THEORY FALLS DOWN. Do not pass go, do not collect £200, go directly back to the drawing board and start again.

I'm with you, I have not seen any FE explanation that accurately and consistently predicts observations.

Where I come from, we would collect $200, but I prefer collecting £200 due to the favourable exchange rate.