[Tom Bishop]

It doesn't really matter where we put the horizon on the night side of that earth. The moon should still be pointing into it, not away from it. Imaging it in 3D doesn't help either.

The moon will only point away from the horizon on that earth if we put the horizon line on the day side.

So you're not going to tell us where and when that photo was taken, then?

If not, perhaps you could illustrate what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth", since I've gone to the trouble for you ... ?

The photo comes from Page 1 of this University of Pennsylvania paper on the subject: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

[Tom Bishop]

The above paper seems to support the ridiculous "Celestial Sphere" theory I mentioned earlier.

Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because loca-
tions of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination.
For  the  topocentric  model  used  for  the  sun  and  the  moon,  location  is  specified  by
azimuth and altitude.  All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same
distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere sur-
rounding the observer.  Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic
tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light
from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space
are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.  Straight lines in
space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere.
Great circle arcs cannot be captured on photographs and visible straight lines are not
perceived as arcs when scanned by human vision.

How can it be that the celestial bodies around us appear on an invisible curved surface like a planetarium? The "Celestial Sphere" theory suggests that the sun and the moon are painted on a glass sphere around the earth, and light travels in curved paths on that surface, rather than appearing in normal 3D space.

Again, in a computer model an arrow pointing at a sphere will always be pointed at that sphere, no matter what angle or position the camera is looking at the scene from. There is no "Celestial Sphere".

[Tumeni]

The photo comes from this Page 1 of this University of Pennsylvania paper on the subject: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

Did you read that document, or merely take the photo and caption from it?

and ...

You're not going to illustrate yourself what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth" .... at all?

[Tom Bishop]

Did you read that document, or merely take the photo and caption from it?

Yes. The paper concludes that the situation can't really be explained geometrically and that light must be curved. It attempts to pass off the "Celestial Sphere" theory which argues that the celestial bodies and all light we see between them are painted on an invisible curved surface, and therefore the light between them will be curved.

This explanation is clearly ridiculous. That is not how normal 3D space works.

You're not going to illustrate yourself what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth" .... at all?

By pointing into the earth I mean pointing down towards the earth or away from it. In your illustration on the previous page the moon would be seen pointing towards the earth. But the photograph we are talking about has the moon is pointing away from the earth. The moon is photographed pointing away from the horizon, when it should be pointing towards the horizon according to your illustration.

[Tumeni]

Please confirm which part of the Moon you're regarding as the 'point' ...

[Tom Bishop]

Please confirm which part of the Moon you're regarding as the 'point' ...

In Round Earth theory the phase of the Moon should be pointed at the Sun at all times. It is hard to explain why the phase of the moon would be pointed away from the horizon when the sun has already set below the horizon:

[NorseMythology]

Could this be the geometry?

edit (of the first video)

[Tumeni]

In Round Earth theory the phase of the Moon should be pointed at the Sun at all times. It is hard to explain why the phase of the moon would be pointed away from the horizon when the sun has already set below the horizon

Sorry, but I covered this in post #9

The line between Moon and Sun is one side of a triangle. You are at the triangle point opposite that side, so the line between Moon and Sun is 'looking' past you, regardless of where you are on the Earth, and regardless of whether or not your horizon is between you and the Sun. The Moon can see the Sun even if you can't.   

You're also at an angle to the plane of the triangle

[Tom Bishop]

In Round Earth theory the phase of the Moon should be pointed at the Sun at all times. It is hard to explain why the phase of the moon would be pointed away from the horizon when the sun has already set below the horizon

Sorry, but I covered this in post #9

The line between Moon and Sun is one side of a triangle. You are at the triangle point opposite that side, so the line between Moon and Sun is 'looking' past you, regardless of where you are on the Earth, and regardless of whether or not your horizon is between you and the Sun. The Moon can see the Sun even if you can't.   

You're also at an angle to the plane of the triangle

Can you provide an illustration? The last illustration you provided demonstrated that the geometry doesn't actually work out.

[Tumeni]

Can you provide an illustration?

Why should I draw another, when all you will do is draw an aribitrary blue line on it, and say that's the 'horizon' of the observer? 

Why should I, when you can't and won't show how you think it all fits together?

The last illustration you provided demonstrated that the geometry doesn't actually work out.

I disagree. Regardless of observer position on Earth, the relation between three objects (Sun. Moon, Observer) is a triangle. The Observer is at the point opposite the line connecting sun and moon. The line between observer and Moon is approx 240k miles.

If you mean the geometry didn't match your particular photo exactly, then I'm not surprised. It wasn't intended to.

The Moon doesn't care if the observer is three miles or so beyond his horizon toward the sun, nor whether or not the observer can see the sun or not. It can still see the sun from where it is.

The observer having the sun behind his horizon does not pull the Moon 240k out of its orbit, down to Earth's surface, to share his view of the sun. The Moon has its own line of sight to the Sun 

[xenotolerance]

Tom...

...the caption says the moon is in the southeast. The sun sets in the west. The moon is just above the eastern horizon, with its dark side facing east and its lit side facing west. The lit side of the moon is indeed facing the sun.

this is not hard to explain; it is just hard for you et al to accept when it means the Earth can't be flat

[Curious Squirrel]

Actually, here's a curiosity. Presuming you're 100% correct in what you're saying here. How does this not break FE too? The two are nearly on the same plane relative to us. This shouldn't be a thing for FE either. What an I missing?

[Ratboy]

Funny that I was just looking at the moon last night and was thinking how if anyone did Zetetic research, they could believe in a flat earth.
The celestial sphere thing sounds pretty hokey to me.  As mentioned many times here, no one that goes to a planetarium would believe it represents what the night sky looks like.  Just go to one and see for yourself.  The operator of the planetarium (usually a lonely person) will typically tell you where to sit for the best view of whatever they are showing.  Just move around a bit inside one and see that this does not reflect reality. The stars behind you look all distorted because the wall is more parallel to your line of sight.  It is just like how anyone that travels at all should not believe in a flat earth if they take a Zetetic approach.
Rather than debate images posted, just go look at the sun and moon.  As I have mentioned many times, the moon is clearly lit by the sun and the earth is round.  From what we see casually, it would be impossible to tell if the solar system was geocentric or heliocentric.  But we never have solar eclipses during a full moon.  Think back to the one a few weeks ago.  Over the night, the moon does not change phases or look any different which one would expect if it and the sun were a few miles up and circling a flat earth.
My late father used to tell me how I had figured out when I was three that I was directly between the sun and full moon because we were on a hilly road and I would see one or the other and I declared "it is like the sun and moon are on a see saw!" 
If the sun were circling a flat earth similar to the moon one should expect to see things differently.  A new moon moves in the same path as the sun and a full moon follows a path the sun will take 6 months later.  It all works very easily for a round earth but there has been no flat earth model that can explain how it would all work. If one is a Zetetic, they should believe the thing that matches what they see.
If light bends and can shine on things around corners, we should all give up driving or flying or moving at all.  We should not have any discussions at all about things pointing to other things because we would not know where any of these things are. 
The sun is very far away and that is why the moon does not change phase every hour. 
The night sky does not behave like a planetarium and the constellations look the same (they do not distort as you travel) because they are even farther away. 
Just go out and look at the sky.
Be a Zetetic and look and travel.

[Westprog]

The photo comes from this Page 1 of this University of Pennsylvania paper on the subject: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

Did you read that document, or merely take the photo and caption from it?

and ...

You're not going to illustrate yourself what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth" .... at all?

Just to clarify - the paper doesn't, of course, imply "curved light". It explains, in some complex detail, exactly why the moon appears exactly as it should do.

It's not surprising that the paper should be massively misunderstood.

[HorstFue]

The above paper seems to support the ridiculous "Celestial Sphere" theory I mentioned earlier.

Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because loca-
tions of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination.
For  the  topocentric  model  used  for  the  sun  and  the  moon,  location  is  specified  by
azimuth and altitude.  All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same
distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere sur-
rounding the observer.  Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic
tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light
from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space
are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.  Straight lines in
space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere.
Great circle arcs cannot be captured on photographs and visible straight lines are not
perceived as arcs when scanned by human vision.

How can it be that the celestial bodies around us appear on an invisible curved surface like a planetarium? The "Celestial Sphere" theory suggests that the sun and the moon are painted on a glass sphere around the earth, and light travels in curved paths on that surface, rather than appearing in normal 3D space.

Again, in a computer model an arrow pointing at a sphere will always be pointed at that sphere, no matter what angle or position the camera is looking at the scene from. There is no "Celestial Sphere".

That's a typical FE obfuscation: Picking some buzz words from the article like "celestial sphere" and "curved lines"
Adding some assumptions to make it a painted ... glass sphere around the earth.
A quick scan of the referred document nowhere found the word "glass"!
It's mentioned two times that "celestial sphere" is a pure imaginary model, to chart stars/sun/moon, which cannot be observed in real world, and they spent two extra sentences, that the curved lines found on the chart cannot be observed in real world.
So if anything is ridiculous, than the additional assumptions of fairy lady Tom Bishop.

Back to the origin of the thread:
It is very hard to get away from the perception that the horizon and the ground you are standing on is always the one and only reference. So relative to the horizon - presumed to be the one and only reference - the tilt of the moon is quite astonishing.
But:
The orientation of the observer in almost any case is not perpendicular to the plain of earth orbit around the sun.
And to worsen it, the horizon line has an additional tilt against the the orbital plain. It is tilted against the orbital plain to a different degree, in each direction you are looking around. Only for two points, one in the south and another in the north, the horizon is parallel to the orbital plain.
So not the moon is tilted - it always has (nearly) the same orientation to the orbital plain. No, it is the observer and the horizon which is tilted.
If you would have watched the moon for more hours after this photo was taken, you would have seen the moon upright in the south and later tilted to the other side in westerly directions.

[suminoutthere]

Ok, let me ask this question cause I don't see where it's properly been answered by FE folk.
If there is a plausible answer I'll entertain it.

There are well some 7 other planets out there possibly 8 if they ever find Planet X.
We use telescopes (I have one too) and observe the celestial bodies in the skies.
When looking at Saturn you can see the 4 main rings and they wrap around in a circle.
Ok now lets take Mercury and Venus, skip Mars for a minute.  Go out to Saturn and Jupiter.
When observed through a telescope they appear round, and if you say they are always facing earth I think it would be obvious that's not likely.
Then heck let's look at the moon  our nearest celestial body. 
If you want to argue that anything is flat I think you should use that one.  Since we only get to view one side and only one side.  Due to rotational speed matching the orbit speed of a bit over 27 days.    Are all of the planets 100% of the time directly facing Earth where the universe revolves around the Earth?

I'm not trying to be difficult but I just simply don't understand the logic at play here.

[Tom Bishop]

Can you provide an illustration?

Why should I draw another, when all you will do is draw an aribitrary blue line on it, and say that's the 'horizon' of the observer? 

Why should I, when you can't and won't show how you think it all fits together?

If you think that you know the reason for why the moon is pointed away from the horizon after sunset, why not illustrate it for us? You are free to put your own line of the horizon where the observer is.

I disagree. Regardless of observer position on Earth, the relation between three objects (Sun. Moon, Observer) is a triangle. The Observer is at the point opposite the line connecting sun and moon. The line between observer and Moon is approx 240k miles.

If you mean the geometry didn't match your particular photo exactly, then I'm not surprised. It wasn't intended to.

The Moon doesn't care if the observer is three miles or so beyond his horizon toward the sun, nor whether or not the observer can see the sun or not. It can still see the sun from where it is.

The observer having the sun behind his horizon does not pull the Moon 240k out of its orbit, down to Earth's surface, to share his view of the sun. The Moon has its own line of sight to the Sun

Illustrate your scene for us. Your last illustration did not show that the moon would be pointing away from the horizon.

Tom...

...the caption says the moon is in the southeast. The sun sets in the west. The moon is just above the eastern horizon, with its dark side facing east and its lit side facing west. The lit side of the moon is indeed facing the sun.

this is not hard to explain; it is just hard for you et al to accept when it means the Earth can't be flat

Provide an illustration if this is so easy to understand. The attempted illustrations so far have been unsound.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually, here's a curiosity. Presuming you're 100% correct in what you're saying here. How does this not break FE too? The two are nearly on the same plane relative to us. This shouldn't be a thing for FE either. What an I missing?

The "Room Perspective" argument I had mentioned on the first page of this thread doesn't make sense in RET, since the celestial distance are great and the sun and moon do not descend and ascend because of perspective. At no time are the bodies significantly closer to the observer as to cause them to be affected by perspective in that manner. The sun and moon are at their respective distances at all times. It is the rotation of the earth that causes their ascent or descent and position in the sky.

The "Room Perspective" argument may make sense if the sun and moon are close to the earth, and in fact, are descending to perspective.

[Tom Bishop]

The above paper seems to support the ridiculous "Celestial Sphere" theory I mentioned earlier.

Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because loca-
tions of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination.
For  the  topocentric  model  used  for  the  sun  and  the  moon,  location  is  specified  by
azimuth and altitude.  All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same
distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere sur-
rounding the observer.  Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic
tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light
from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space
are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.  Straight lines in
space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere.
Great circle arcs cannot be captured on photographs and visible straight lines are not
perceived as arcs when scanned by human vision.

How can it be that the celestial bodies around us appear on an invisible curved surface like a planetarium? The "Celestial Sphere" theory suggests that the sun and the moon are painted on a glass sphere around the earth, and light travels in curved paths on that surface, rather than appearing in normal 3D space.

Again, in a computer model an arrow pointing at a sphere will always be pointed at that sphere, no matter what angle or position the camera is looking at the scene from. There is no "Celestial Sphere".

That's a typical FE obfuscation: Picking some buzz words from the article like "celestial sphere" and "curved lines"
Adding some assumptions to make it a painted ... glass sphere around the earth.
A quick scan of the referred document nowhere found the word "glass"!
It's mentioned two times that "celestial sphere" is a pure imaginary model, to chart stars/sun/moon, which cannot be observed in real world, and they spent two extra sentences, that the curved lines found on the chart cannot be observed in real world.
So if anything is ridiculous, than the additional assumptions of fairy lady Tom Bishop.

Please illustrate this ridiculous concept of the "Celestial Sphere" for us. How can stars and planets and other celestial bodies be located around the earth in geometric space, with the light between those celestial bodies appearing from the earth to travel on a curved path to the observer? It does not make sense at all. Why would straight lines not be straight and why would the moon not be pointed at the sun?

[xenotolerance]

I mean, I made a thing in MS paint, but it's not super different from the other ones conceptually. The scale is more accurate, but it's still not 100% to scale.



So here, we have an observer at the equator, the north pole is pointed at us, and the Earth is rotating clockwise. So from the perspective of the observer, west is left on the picture and east is right. Overhead is the top of the picture.

The sun has just set behind the western horizon which, it should be noted, would be part of the same pixel as the observer at this scale. When full, the moon is to the east, just over the horizon.