[JSS]

More on the fallacious ball experiment.

Foreground and background balls misaligned:

Wow, by moving the camera around the ball in the foreground I can make the foreground ball match a similar orientation to the ball in the background. Moon Illusion ProoooF!!

Tom, all you are saying here is you don't understand how spheres and shadows work. How exactly do you orient a sphere?  It looks the same from any angle, that's what a sphere is.

I already told you, you need to try this for yourself.  Take a ball, photograph it in the sunlight with the Moon next to it.  Show us how you can make the shadow not line up with the moon's terminator.  This is your claim, which you have given no proof or evidence for. Go outside and try it, you will find it's impossible.

We have shown you pictures duplicating the moon-tilt illusion.  We have shown you pictures with a ping pong ball showing the Sun is always lined up with the Moons terminator.  These are simple for anyone to replicate and verify.

All you have are your claims that it doesn't work this way, just the opinion of an internet rando who can't show their work.

Until you can provide us with photographic evidence, your claims are all worthless.

The perspective explanation doesn't work because sometimes it's possible to see the Sun and Moon in the same field, misaligned to each other.

This doesn't even make any sense.  Did you not see my example?  It's possible to see the Flashlight and the Lampshade are in the same field, misaligned to each other.

Once again, a simple picture proves you wrong.

[Iceman]

The perspective explanation doesn't work because sometimes it's possible to see the Sun and Moon in the same field, misaligned to each other.

The figure you posted of the intersection of wall and ceiling shows exactly that. I can see my whole wall and observe the effect sitting on my arse sipping the lagavulin. On the left edge, it looks like the intersection is angled up and to the right, in the center it looks horizontal, and on the right the intersection looks like its angled up and left.

But in this room where there are numerous things to orient myself, theres no illusion, because I know it's a straight line.  Outside, when all you have is the sky and horizon, all the local clues are gone, and an illusion of misalignment is developed.

[Tom Bishop]

The perspective explanation doesn't work because sometimes it's possible to see the Sun and Moon in the same field, misaligned to each other.

This doesn't even make any sense.  Did you not see my example?  It's possible to see the Flashlight and the Lampshade are in the same field, misaligned to each other.

Once again, a simple picture proves you wrong.

Is that caused by a perspective effect? No. You said that the top image was caused by a distorted camera lens.

Under perspective effect previously described, under straight line geometry, the Moon should point at the Sun when in the same field. What you have presented is not a perspective effect. It is something completely different.

I already told you, you need to try this for yourself.

I did try it, in a 3D simulation. I got the spheres to look like each other. It looked like they were pointing the same way, but they weren't. It was easy. If you want further information on this you can explore on your own, and preferably in a private way that doesn't engage with me. Discussing anything with you is clearly pointless considering the dishonesty you tend to resort to in these discussions.

[stack]

The Wiki goes over that one too. He has multiple explanations in there. That's the perspective explanation.

From the document:



On the Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Perspective_Explanation

Perspective Explanation

An explanation of the Moon Tilt Illusion for the Round Earth Theory is given in the form of a perspective effect. It is possible to arrange yourself under an object so that it points upwards above your head. It is claimed that this is occurring with the Moon.



Scene zoomed out:



Two Object Problem

One issue with this explanation of 'perspective' is that if the observer is ever in a position to see both the Moon and Sun simultaneously, the illuminated portion Moon should point at the Sun. When moving the camera around the above scene, whenever the green cone and yellow ball are in the same field, the cone will always point at the ball along that straight line.



However, in contrast to this experimental determination of perspective, we find that with the Moon Tilt Illusion it is possible for an observer to see both the Moon and Sun simultaneously, misaligned to each other.

At http://www.astropix.com/html/l_story/moonill.html (Archive) professional astrophotographer Jerry Lodriguss (bio) reports:



From the author:

  “ Now, I have always under the impression that if you took the Moon's phase illumination angle it would draw a line straight back to the sun. But this sure wasn't what I thought I saw this day.

Obviously, it's an illusion that has something to do with a three-dimensional space being projected onto a two-dimensional plane in my eyeballs. Some people have tried to explain it as involving great circles, just as airplanes fly great circle routes to places on the opposite side of the globe. However they only do this because they can't fly a straight line through the Earth.

What I can't seem to get past is that the Sun and the Moon were in the same field together and I could view them both at the same time and that the light from the Sun is going in a straight line from the Sun to the Moon. It is not following a great circle. ”

The perspective explanation doesn't work because sometimes it's possible to see the Sun and Moon in the same field, misaligned to each other.

Again, omitting and cherry picking. Not a good look. Your citation from the gentleman who talks about seeing the Sun and Moon in the same field together goes on to say (which you cheekily left out):

Update
I saw the phase-angle-illumination moon illusion again today, this time with a gibbous moon. Again, it was quite striking.
But this time, I took a string out of the trunk of my car and stretched it from a line perpendicular to the tips of the illuminated side, and although the string was not long enough to reach all the way to the sun because of their angular separation, it did seem to come very much closer to pointing at the sun than it looked without the string. I'm sure that if the string was long enough, it would have pointed right at the sun.

[Tom Bishop]

The perspective explanation doesn't work because sometimes it's possible to see the Sun and Moon in the same field, misaligned to each other.

The figure you posted of the intersection of wall and ceiling shows exactly that. I can see my whole wall and observe the effect sitting on my arse sipping the lagavulin. On the left edge, it looks like the intersection is angled up and to the right, in the center it looks horizontal, and on the right the intersection looks like its angled up and left.

But in this room where there are numerous things to orient myself, theres no illusion, because I know it's a straight line.  Outside, when all you have is the sky and horizon, all the local clues are gone, and an illusion of misalignment is developed.

It is unclear what specific orientation or event you are talking about from that description, but if you were to take a picture with a wide angle rectilinear lens you would find that the edge of the ceiling stays straight along its length, as straight lines are preserved.

Again, omitting and cherry picking. Not a good look. Your citation from the gentleman who talks about seeing the Sun and Moon in the same field together goes on to say (which you cheekily left out):

Update
I saw the phase-angle-illumination moon illusion again today, this time with a gibbous moon. Again, it was quite striking.
But this time, I took a string out of the trunk of my car and stretched it from a line perpendicular to the tips of the illuminated side, and although the string was not long enough to reach all the way to the sun because of their angular separation, it did seem to come very much closer to pointing at the sun than it looked without the string. I'm sure that if the string was long enough, it would have pointed right at the sun.

That argument actually was not omitted. It's in the Wiki. We discussed the string experiment already at length. Please refer to the Wiki or back to the previous pages in this thread for discussion on that.

Also, according to that text it's not even the same phase or observation of the Moon as in the picture provided.

You know that we have been discussing the string experiment, and are mostly just spamming without addressing the actual arguments, as you know very well that you have no good arguments and nothing new to bring to the table. Are you next going to tell me that someone else we quoted about the Moon Tilt mentioned that string experiment and I didn't address them now? This is just dishonest spam. You must do this and waste our time because you know that you are arguing from a losing position and that there are no good explanations for this.

[JSS]

The perspective explanation doesn't work because sometimes it's possible to see the Sun and Moon in the same field, misaligned to each other.

This doesn't even make any sense.  Did you not see my example?  It's possible to see the Flashlight and the Lampshade are in the same field, misaligned to each other.

Once again, a simple picture proves you wrong.

Is that caused by a perspective effect? No. You said that the top image was caused by a distorted camera lens.

I'm sorry you are having so much trouble understanding a simple picture, but it's not my problem if you get all the explanations mixed up.  You can call it whatever effect you want, it doesn't change how it looks, does it?

Under perspective effect previously described, under straight line geometry, the Moon should point at the Sun when in the same field. What you have presented is not a perspective effect. It is something completely different.

Again, you misunderstanding simple geometry doesn't change the facts of the picture I have shown that matches the moon-tilt illusion. 

Your argument is completely empty.  You are claiming I'm presenting a 'perspective effect' and it's something 'completely different' but it's just word salad with no meaning.  You claiming this is not backed up by any facts.

Look at my picture and the moon-tilt illusion pictures.  They are the same.  You claiming they are not is clearly wrong.

I already told you, you need to try this for yourself.

I did try it, in a 3D simulation. I got the spheres to look like each other. It looked like they were pointing the same way, but they weren't. It was easy. If you want further information on this you can explore on your own, and preferably in a private way that doesn't engage with me. Discussing anything with you is clearly pointless considering the dishonesty you tend to resort to in these discussions.

Tom, go outside and just look at a ball in the sun.

Using simulation software incorrectly is not the same as going out in the actual sunlight and trying it, your simulations are worthless as they aren't even testing the same thing.

How many times do we have to explain to you that you can't point a sphere, it's the same shape from every direction. That's what a sphere is.

What is dishonest is you avoiding actually performing this experiment and resorting to simulations with a CONE instead of a sphere.  Do you not understand the are DIFFERENT SHAPES?  Of course you do, that's why you are using a cone because you are deliberately trying to cheat.

If you were honestly trying to simulate two spheres in a simulation, you would use two spheres.  Not a sphere and a cone.  You are arguing in extremely bad faith here.

[stack]

Again, omitting and cherry picking. Not a good look. Your citation from the gentleman who talks about seeing the Sun and Moon in the same field together goes on to say (which you cheekily left out):

Update
I saw the phase-angle-illumination moon illusion again today, this time with a gibbous moon. Again, it was quite striking.
But this time, I took a string out of the trunk of my car and stretched it from a line perpendicular to the tips of the illuminated side, and although the string was not long enough to reach all the way to the sun because of their angular separation, it did seem to come very much closer to pointing at the sun than it looked without the string. I'm sure that if the string was long enough, it would have pointed right at the sun.

That argument actually was not omitted. It's in the Wiki. We discussed the string experiment already. Please refer to the Wiki or back to the previous pages in this thread for discussion on that.

Also, according to that text it's not even the same phase or observation of the Moon as in the picture provided.

Yes, you have an argument in the wiki. But you omitted the "Update" paragraph I posted above. That is not in the wiki. Why not? Because it contradicts you?

You know that we have been discussing the string experiment, and are mostly just spamming without addressing the actual arguments, as you know very well that you have no good arguments and nothing new to bring to the table. Are you next going to tell me that someone else we quoted about the Moon Tilt mentioned that string experiment and I didn't address them now? This is just dishonest spam. You must do this and waste our time because you know that you are arguing from a losing position and that there are no good explanations for this.

This seems to be your MO; You cherry-pick paragraphs from papers that straight up refute your claims and leave out all the parts that show you are wrong. Sure, you've addressed the string experiment, but you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that all of these people you cite, doing string experiments, math, etc., completely refute your claims. Talk about wasting time, your wiki is chock full of article citations that are the exact opposite of what you claim, you just leave out those contrary parts and create some weird narrative and think people won't notice. Talk about dishonest spam. Holy heck. Why not find some citations that actually back you up in full instead of plucking bits and pieces in hopes no one will actually read the full article you scraped.

The good explanations are all in the papers/articles you reference, one just has to actually go to the source documents to see that you are wrong. Simple as that. I can keep posting all of the stuff that contradicts you from your references all day long. It's all there. Stop trying to hide it.

[RazaTD]

Is it possible for someone to replicate this scenario on a 3D model of the globe in a software like blender? I assume it’s going to be relatively trivial (as opposed to what the FE goes for with EA). I would try it myself once I find some time.

[AATW]

Wow, by moving the camera around the ball in the foreground I can make the foreground ball match a similar orientation to the ball in the background. Moon Illusion ProoooF!!

Well, no. That’s neither proof nor refutation.
You keep modelling things which are not equivalent to the sun moon system and so drawing false conclusions.

I’m sorry you don’t understand perspective. That does seem to be the root of many of your problems. It’s why you don’t understand crepuscular rays too. Some time ago I did a 3D model which showed how that works and you walked away from the conversation, something you do regularly when you’re shown definitively to be wrong.

The cone model you did is erroneous because cones point, spherical light sources don’t.
The two spheres model is erroneous because yes, in the ping pong ball perspective IS important. I drew a diagram explaining why. You ignored it as you do so often with things you don’t understand or can’t refute.

It’s as simple as this:
IF the sun is distant and illuminating the moon THEN when you can see the sun and the moon at the same time you should be able to draw a straight line perpendicular to the terminator of the moon which intersects the sun. To the naked eye it looks like you can’t when the illusion occurs. The string experiment demonstrates that the apparent misalignment is simply an optical illusion.

IF the sun is distant and illuminating the moon THEN if you hold up a sphere so it is aligned with the sun - my diagram explains why this alignment is important - then you should observe the same phase on the ball as you do the moon because they are both being illuminated by the same parallel rays from the sun.

You really need to take a simple physics class, your lack of understanding is leading you to false conclusions.

And your continued failure to provide a diagram demonstrating how this illusion is a prediction of EA as your Wiki claims is telling.
If you can’t do that then I suggest you remove that from the Wiki.

[JSS]

Since the photo with the flashlight and lampshade seemed to be too abstract and confusing for some people, I took advantage of the sunshine today to take a picture of an actual sphere using the real Sun.

This demonstrates the moon-tilt illusion, you can clearly see that the shadow is not pointing at the Sun, but points upwards at quite an angle. This does not mean the light is bending in strange ways, it simply is the result of the geometry of a wide field of view. It's just an illusion.

Once more, compare the two images. See how in both the terminator of the Moon and the terminator of the sphere don't line up with the Sun when on opposite ends of the frame?  It's the same effect.

Hopefully this is simple enough for anyone to understand.

[Tom Bishop]

On the topic of the fallacious "ball experiment" -

Look at what Mick West is doing at MetaBunk. He provides two images of the scene in different positions, the arrows are drawn by him. From a far off point the ball on the post points at the Sun, as expected. The Moon in the background is pointing at an upwards angle, per the Moon Tilt Illusion. Red Arrows drawn by Mick West:



The arrow from the ball points at the Sun. The arrow from the Moon does not.

This clown gets closer and angles the camera up at the ball to get it to point in an orientation like the Moon in the background:



This is clearly a close range perspective effect that caused this to happen, no different than the previous examples in this thread:

More on the fallacious ball experiment.

Foreground and background balls misaligned:



Wow, by moving the camera around the ball in the foreground I can make the foreground ball match a similar orientation to the ball in the background. Moon Illusion ProoooF!!

[AATW]

On the topic of the fallacious "ball experiment"

Your inability to understand something doesn’t make the something fallacious.

I even drew a diagram to try and help you understand why the alignment was important.
If you didn’t understand it then feel free to ask questions and I will try to explain further.

Your continued inability to draw a diagram explaining how this illusion is a prediction of EA is noted. If this claim cannot be backed up with any evidence then I suggest you remove it from your Wiki.

[JSS]

On the topic of the fallacious "ball experiment" -

Name calling does not an argument make. 

This clown gets closer and angles the camera up at the ball to get it to point in an orientation like the Moon in the background:

Again with the name calling, not helpful.

Tom, please explain how you 'point a ball' in a direction. You keep saying things like that, and 'pointing the Sun' but you can't point a sphere or a light source like the Sun.  I think you are getting the Sun confused with a spotlight?

This is clearly a close range perspective effect that caused this to happen, no different than the previous examples in this thread:

It's only clear to you because you clearly don't understand how perspective or shadows, or light sources work.  Calling it 'a close range perspective effect' is just more word salad.

You seem unable to respond to my pictures, as your responses are just quoting yourself and nit-picking at other sites. But here they are again, do you not see the resemblance? Do you not see how in both pictures the light source is not aligned with the shadow?

Now why would this be? Think about it before replying. Why do these two images show the same illusion? Perhaps because they are the same?

[Longtitube]

This is clearly a close range perspective effect that caused this to happen, no different than the previous examples in this thread

I do enjoy it when you talk balls; could you explain how a close range perspective effect works on a ball’s shadow and at what range a true representation would be seen?

[AATW]

This is clearly a close range perspective effect that caused this to happen, no different than the previous examples in this thread

I do enjoy it when you talk balls; could you explain how a close range perspective effect works on a ball’s shadow and at what range a true representation would be seen?

Weirdly, all the ways Tom doesn’t understand perspective have cancelled themselves out here and he’s sort of stumbled on the right answer.

In reality half of the moon is lit up at all times. The phase we see of the moon is because of our perspective. So the fact you have to hold the ball up so it lines up with the moon - the very thing Tom is using to dismiss this experiment - is exactly the point.

If you hold the ball up so they line up then if the sun is distant and is illuminating the moon and the ball then you’d expect to see the same phase. I drew a diagram explaining this.

If EA was a thing then I’d expect to see different phases because the ball and moon are in different positions and so would be lit in different ways by the bending light. But that isn’t what we observe.

[Tom Bishop]

You seem unable to respond to my pictures, as your responses are just quoting yourself and nit-picking at other sites. But here they are again, do you not see the resemblance? Do you not see how in both pictures the light source is not aligned with the shadow?

Now why would this be? Think about it before replying. Why do these two images show the same illusion? Perhaps because they are the same?

You're going to have to re-do this one over with a rectilinear lens.

The illuminated portion of the ball always points at the Sun when they are in the same field.

[Iceman]

Tom can you explain  the significance of your animation? Would things be different if, instead of a plane, it was the top of a sphere?

What are the pictures showing?

[JSS]

You seem unable to respond to my pictures, as your responses are just quoting yourself and nit-picking at other sites. But here they are again, do you not see the resemblance? Do you not see how in both pictures the light source is not aligned with the shadow?

Now why would this be? Think about it before replying. Why do these two images show the same illusion? Perhaps because they are the same?

You're going to have to re-do this one over with a rectilinear lens.

Why would I have to, just because you say so?  I'm showing the same effect as the photo in your own Wiki.

The Ball always points at the Sun when they are in the same field.

What does 'same field' mean in this context? What is the field?  What makes one field not the same as another? 

And once again.. how does a ball point at anything?  Do you mean the shadow lines up with the sun? You should be aware that ALL shadows line up with the source of the light, that's how shadows work. You are making no sense.

[JSS]

Just to add some more reference images, here is another photo from today of the moon showing that the shadow of the Moon is aligned with the Sun.  I made sure there was no distortion in this image by making sure the Sun and Moon were both leveled and centered in the frame when I took the picture.

As you can see, the Moon's shadow is aligned with the Sun, not at a 45 degree angle up or down.

[Tom Bishop]

This is clearly a close range perspective effect that caused this to happen, no different than the previous examples in this thread

I do enjoy it when you talk balls; could you explain how a close range perspective effect works on a ball’s shadow and at what range a true representation would be seen?

It's a close range perspective effect because bodies at close range will appear to tilt and change orientation easier with smaller movement than bodies in the background. This effect is part of standard Euclidean Geometry.

Two Rubix Cubes

Overhead:



View 1:



View 2:



I can move the camera around the closer object and create greater shifts in orientation than a background object.