The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: RazaTD on February 18, 2021, 04:48:04 AM

Title: Simple Experiments
Post by: RazaTD on February 18, 2021, 04:48:04 AM
I want to know what is the simplest experiment that one can do in their neighborhood or community without expensive  equipment or a lot of commitment. Is there something so simple that everyone can do and that strongly distinguishes whether reality is a Flat Earth or Globe Earth?

I am pretty sure it depends on the location too whether you live in a urban, suburban, or a rural area. Or even you live near mountains or beach etc.

But is there any experiment that comes closest to being extremely accessible and strong in conclusion?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: iamcpc on February 18, 2021, 03:39:40 PM
I want to know what is the simplest experiment that one can do in their neighborhood or community without expensive  equipment or a lot of commitment. Is there something so simple that everyone can do and that strongly distinguishes whether reality is a Flat Earth or Globe Earth?

I am pretty sure it depends on the location too whether you live in a urban, suburban, or a rural area. Or even you live near mountains or beach etc.

But is there any experiment that comes closest to being extremely accessible and strong in conclusion?



There are many experiments but the problem is that someone who believes the earth is round states that the results of the experiment shows the earth is round usually have a good rebuttal from the FE community.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 02:04:43 AM
The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at in depth, and is easily accessible - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Although RE claims to have answers for this, those answers really don't work.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 03:04:28 AM
The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at in depth, and is easily accessible - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Although RE claims to have answers for this, those answers really don't work.

The answer is that it's an illusion and not real. This is easily shown with a piece of string to show that the shadow actually is aligned with the Sun. It just looks like it's not to the naked eye, thus the illusion. Anyone can do this themselves and I highly suggest trying it.

This isn't even a RE vs FE issue, it's a simple matter of optics. 
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 03:07:53 AM
The string discussion is addressed in the link, which you do not even attempt a response to.

Your "it's an illusion" explanation does not explain anything at all and is an example of your failure to explain this.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 03:25:26 AM
The string discussion is addressed in the link, which you do not even attempt a response to.

Your "it's an illusion" explanation does not explain anything at all and is an example of your failure to explain this.

That's because the Wiki's explanation makes no sense and is not understanding how the string is used.  To use the example in the Wiki, if you hold the string so it follows the trunk of the tree, it will not hit the cabin, because the tree isn't pointing at the cabin.

But when you hold the string between the Sun and Moon, you can see the shadow on the Moon does line up with the string.

You really should try this for yourself so you understand how it works before dismissing it.

Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 03:38:23 AM
I have tried it. It's insufficient. Here is the section from the Wiki:

Quote
Along the same lines as the above, we are given reference to "string experiments" in which the direction of the Moon's illuminated portion is able to be connected to the sun with a string.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/4a/String-Experiment.jpg/900px-String-Experiment.jpg) (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/5/54/String_Experiment_Close.jpg/498px-String_Experiment_Close.jpg)

Credit: Bobby Shafto

It has been argued that the string experiment shows that the bodies do actually point at each other. An illusion of some type is occurring and the string experiment "breaks the illusion," demonstrating that the illuminated portion of the Moon is actually pointing at the Sun. If it was not pointing at the Sun then it would not be possible to hold a straight piece of string along that path.

As a reply to this, consider the following scenario:

    You are laying down on the ground on your back, facing upwards, and at the edges of your vision see the top of a pine tree on one side of your vision, and the top of a cabin on the other. You take out a string and connect them together across your vision. Have you proved that the tree is pointing at the cabin?

If you are laying down on the ground on your back and see the Moon pointing upwards on one side of your vision and see the Sun setting at the horizon on the other, a string connecting the two will no more prove that the Moon is pointing at the Sun than it would prove that a tree is pointing at a cabin. When you lay on your back you can see 190 degrees of space1. Just because an object at one side might be pointing "up" at another object at the other side, it doesn't mean that they are pointing at each other.

When wrapped around the observer, this panoramic view of the moon tilt illusion:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/10/Moon-Tilt-Fishbowl-1.png)

Turns into this:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/0/0a/Moon-Tilt-Fishbowl-2.png/900px-Moon-Tilt-Fishbowl-2.png)

Art Credit: Todd Lockwood

In the above example both the Moon and airplane are on opposite sides of the Sun near point B. The Sun is on the horizon at point A. The Moon and airplane are not actually pointing at the Sun. The string merely connects them two dimensionally across a 'sphere of vision' exactly like the tree-cabin example.

If the airplane was actually pointing at the Sun in the above example, then when looking at the airplane face on, with the Sun on the horizon to your back, you should see the airplane pointed at you and tilted downwards towards the opposite horizon behind you. The same would also apply for the Moon. If the Moon were pointing at the Sun then when you face the Moon its illumined portion should point downwards at the Sun at the horizon behind you, just as an airplane would. Thus, we see that this assertion that the string experiment demonstrates that an illusion is occurring and that bodies are pointing at each other is erroneous. The string experiment may suggest that object positions and straight line paths behave as if they are curving on a dome of some manner, which may provide us with a clue in deciphering the nature of our world, but it does not demonstrate absolute directions of bodies.

A fish-bowl type simulation of the Moon Tilt Illusion can be seen in University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Moon Phases and the Horizon Diagram (.swf Archive) - "Provides a method of learning the correlation between the phase of the moon, the time of day, and the position of the moon in the sky."

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/2/21/String-Experiment-3.png/1050px-String-Experiment-3.png)

Footnotes

1 "our eyes sit in the front of our head, allowing us to see about 60 percent of world in front of us with both eyes, at the compromise that we can only see at maximum about 190 degrees around us (Block 1969; Wolfe 2006)" – Human Spatial Navigation, 2018, p.73

If we take the last image we see that there is only one path where the string connects to the Sun, by connecting it across the observer's vision.

If you face the Moon dead on where the Moon is in the center of your vison and hold out a string at arms length it will NOT connect to the sun (Red).

It only connects to the sun if you connect it across your vision (Teal).

(https://i.imgur.com/DoxzhL3.png)

And going back to the Tree-Cabin example in the Wiki, if you are laying down on the ground and see the top of a pine tree on one side of your vision and the top of a cabin on the other, connecting them together with a string across your sphere of vision does NOT prove that the tree is pointing at the cabin.

(https://i.imgur.com/09qATYN.png)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 04:20:43 AM
Two pencils intersecting a transparent plane:

(https://i.imgur.com/Puf05jx.png)

Going beneath the plane and looking up at the pencils I see:

(https://i.imgur.com/99OAz5p.png)

I can connect a string! The pencils must be pointing at each other.  ::)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2021, 11:04:13 AM
I can connect a string! The pencils must be pointing at each other.  ::)

That's a false equivalence, as is the tree, cabin example. The sun doesn't "point" at anything, it is simply a light source which radiates light in all directions.

The moon, in RET, is being illuminated by the sun. And light travels in straight lines - for the purposes of this conversation, there are Relativistic and refraction effects which mean that's not 100% true, but in the context of light from the sun hitting the moon it is true.

If light travels in straight lines AND if the sun is illuminating the moon then when you see the moon the line perpendicular to the terminator on the moon must point at the sun:

(https://i.ibb.co/jwtCDRH/MoonSun.jpg)

When you see the moon tilt illusion it looks like that isn't the case, but the piece of string demonstrates that it is and it's simply an optical illusion.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: SteelyBob on February 19, 2021, 12:04:20 PM

I can connect a string! The pencils must be pointing at each other.  ::)

...is the incorrect thing to conclude from your thought experiment. As AATW says, spheres can't point. What you have proved, however, is that the pencils are orientated east-west on your gridded plane as illustrated. If you want to get from one to the other, you travel east or west respectively. In the same way, by connecting the moon to the sun with a piece of string you have established the direction from one to the other. And if that direction in consistent with the side of the moon that appears to be illuminated, which it always is - go outside and try it sometime - then you have taken the mystery out of the illusion.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 12:45:20 PM
I have tried it. It's insufficient. Here is the section from the Wiki:

And going back to the Tree-Cabin example in the Wiki, if you are laying down on the ground and see the top of a pine tree on one side of your vision and the top of a cabin on the other, connecting them together with a string across your sphere of vision does NOT prove that the tree is pointing at the cabin.

I'm sorry you were unable to perform on understand the moon-tilt illusion demonstration correctly, but let me try and explain it again.

I think some of the confusion is due to the TFES Wiki badly misunderstanding the illusion. Here is a quote.

Quote
Some attribute this phenomenon to 'perspective', while astronomers tell us that there is a 'celestial sphere' which the celestial bodies glide upon at different angles, and upon which straight lines become curved. We are given a series of analogies and explanations separate from, and incompatible with, the Round Earth Theory.

I am not sure where any of that came from, this is not how the moon-tilt illusion is explained. The entire Wiki page seems to be a straw-man argument as I've never seen a 'series of explanations' to such a simple optical illusion.

The simple explanation is that wide angle images either from a camera or the human eye will result in a distorted image. Adding a reference when taking the photo or looking with your eye, usually a string running perpendicular to the Moon's terminator will show it is actually lined up correctly.

Let me take some pictures to illustrate because this really is a simple concept.  Now, you might look at the first image and wonder why light is curving.  The shadow clearly doesn't line up with the light source! How confusing, how could this be? But it's just an illusion as the second image shows. This is simply how light works. The shadow isn't bent in that top image, the image is.

Just to make clear, the only change between the two images was framing the image at the top of the sensor vs the center.  Nothing else moved, the light and shadow is always going in a straight line. It's just showing what happens when an image is projected onto a plane, like a camera sensor or our retina.

As you can see, there is no need to invoke celestial spheres, things gliding, bendy light, or complicated perspective equations.  It's just distortion that any camera or eye will cause. That's all.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2021, 12:53:34 PM
More good work, JSS.
I'd also be interested to know how this illusion, which as the name suggests is nothing more than an optical illusion, albeit an interesting one, is a "prediction" of EA as the Wiki claims.

I'd like to see a proper diagram which demonstrates this, the Wiki has one but the light in the diagram bends downwards which is the opposite of the EA claim so I don't understand how this illusion is a prediction of EA.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 05:10:36 PM
The string experiment is unable to distinguish whether something is pointing at something else.

(https://i.imgur.com/iwEwtS7.jpg)

From a ground level angle:

(https://i.imgur.com/kxTpUG7.png)

We can connect a string between them. The Purple Cone must be pointing at the Sun. ::)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2021, 05:14:57 PM
The string experiment is unable to distinguish whether something is pointing at something else.
As has already been explained, the sun doesn't point at anything.
If there is clear line of sight between the sun and an object then the sun will illuminate that object.
And you can tell from which direction an object is being illuminated - if the object is not fully illuminated from your perspective then a line perpendicular to the terminator should point at the light source.
When the optical illusion occurs it appears that this is not the case. The string experiment demonstrates that this is merely an illusion.

Can you explain with a diagram how this effect is explained and predicted by EA?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Iceman on February 19, 2021, 05:15:47 PM
The string experiment doesnt determine of something is 'pointing' at something.

Lucky the sun emits light in all directions. The string experiment demonstrates that the two objects can be connected by a straight line
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: JSS
The simple explanation is that wide angle images either from a camera or the human eye will result in a distorted image.

This is a third explanation for the Moon Tilt Illusion. But this argument is so bad that the Wiki does not bother to address it.

"Wide Angle" does not mandate distortion. Human vision is wide angle and rectilinear, meaning that straight lines stay straight. There are also many wide angle lenses which are rectilinear and can keep straight lines straight.

If human vision had enough distortion to cause the apparent direction of the Moon to point in a significantly different direction than the Sun then the Moon would be pointing in different directions depending on where it is in your field of vision. It does not point in different directions depending on how we look at it. Therefore we can take this "explanation" and toss it in the garbage.

Quote from: JSS
I am not sure where any of that came from, this is not how the moon-tilt illusion is explained.

Anyone familiar with the previous discussions on this knows that this wrong. There are multiple explanations given for this. MetaBunk and VSauce use the perspective explanation, Professor Myers in the Wiki link insists that Astronomers use a celestial sphere. Now you bring in a third explanation involving warped distortion in our vision, as the "official" explanation, without any reference or  support whatsoever.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 06:21:13 PM
"Wide Angle" does not mandate distortion. Human vision is wide angle and rectilinear, meaning that straight lines stay straight. There are also many wide angle lenses which are rectilinear and can keep straight lines straight.

Tom, that is showing your complete ignorance on how cameras and human vision works.  This is totally wrong, and goes against everything we know about human vision, which is a lot. 

Lines do NOT stay straight when projected onto the retina. How can they, you are mapping a three dimensional world onto a flat surface, it just does not work. You are completely off base here. The brain has to post-process the image and straighten out curved lines so they seem straight to us.

You keep using the word rectilinear as if it's magic, but do not apparently understand what it means. You can not have a wide angle lens without distortion at the edges, you need to do more research before saying such things.

Please show your sources that human eyes have no distortion with straight lines.  It's a simple sensor and a lens, this will cause distortion, this is a simple fact no matter if you understand it or not.

As for 'all the different explanations' that is just your not understanding the basic concept they are all trying to explain.  I'll show you again, try and look and understand this picture and not just complain it's not exactly the same as you saw in a YouTube video by VSauce.  You didn't understand that one, so I am trying to simplify it enough.

Actually look at this picture this time please, do you not see the EXACT same effect as the moon-tilt illusion pictures?  It's literally the same thing.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 07:26:03 PM
Quote from: JSS
Tom, that is showing your complete ignorance on how cameras and human vision works.  This is totally wrong, and goes against everything we know about human vision, which is a lot.

Lines do NOT stay straight when projected onto the retina. How can they, you are mapping a three dimensional world onto a flat surface, it just does not work. You are completely off base here. The brain has to post-process the image and straighten out curved lines so they seem straight to us.

Wrong. Please, just stop posting. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The retina is not flat. The retina is a concave surface.

(https://www.consultingeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Eye-diagram-Or-Eyeagram-1024x712.jpg)

Quote from: JSS
You keep using the word rectilinear as if it's magic, but do not apparently understand what it means. You can not have a wide angle lens without distortion at the edges, you need to do more research before saying such things.

It's the word of a rando forum poster here who is continuously wrong versus the word of a camera manufacturer who says that they can make wide angle lenses which keeps straight lines straight.

http://pdfstream.manualsonline.com/d/d0d8a9c8-5572-e6b4-318c-51f70cb6620e.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/8dybPBm.png)

Quote from: JSS
Please show your sources that human eyes have no distortion with straight lines.  It's a simple sensor and a lens, this will cause distortion, this is a simple fact no matter if you understand it or not.

Oh, now you're asking for evidence that we see straight as straight? How about you post your evidence that we see straight lines as curves? Euclidean Geometry assumes that our vision is rectilinear and undistorted.

https://www.ptgui.com/man/projections.html

"Rectilinear ('flat'): This is the projection of the panoramic sphere onto a flat surface. It is the projection our eyes are used to, the projection of a normal camera. Rectilinear projection has the unique property of preserving all straight lines: any line that is straight in real world, is displayed as a straight line in the panorama. This makes it a suitable projection for architectural panoramas."

Borrow Lenses - https://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/rectilinear-fisheye-wide-angle-lens/

"The majority of lenses made are rectilinear. They most accurately reflect the way that we view the world with our eyes."

On optics - https://www.basicknowledge101.com/subjects/sight.html

"Distortion in optics is a deviation from rectilinear projection; a projection in which straight lines in a scene remain straight in an image. It is a form of optical aberration."
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2021, 07:30:37 PM
Note how Tom is once again trying to change the subject.
He has failed to address his misunderstanding that the sun “points” anywhere and failed to explain how the illusion is a prediction of EA as the Wiki claims.

I continue to await his diagram that explains this.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 07:44:20 PM
Quote
Tom, that is showing your complete ignorance on how cameras and human vision works.  This is totally wrong, and goes against everything we know about human vision, which is a lot.

Lines do NOT stay straight when projected onto the retina. How can they, you are mapping a three dimensional world onto a flat surface, it just does not work. You are completely off base here. The brain has to post-process the image and straighten out curved lines so they seem straight to us.

Wrong. Please, just stop posting. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The retina is not flat. The retina is a concave surface.

I really wish you would take your own advice.  ::) Any projection from three dimensional space onto a two dimensional surface is going to cause distortion, this is what happens on the eye. You can't project the surface of a sphere onto a plane without distorting it, it's just geometrically impossible. Please ask any high school math teacher and they can explain it to you.

It's the word of a rando forum poster here who is continuously wrong versus the word of a camera manufacturer who says that they can make wide angle lenses which keeps straight lines straight.

http://pdfstream.manualsonline.com/d/d0d8a9c8-5572-e6b4-318c-51f70cb6620e.pdf

Read your own sources, you keep posting ones that contradict yourself.  From that PDF...

"Howerver, a circular object like a ball or person's head, located near the edge of the frame will appear to be somewhat enlarged and will have an oval shape."

So much for your claim that this lens has no distortions.  Really, you are using an ADVERTISEMENT for a product as your source?  You are literally using what a marketing department wrote and taking it as scientific fact as if they aren't going to simplify and exaggerate their product's abilities. Come on, Tom.

There is also this.

"Neither fisheye nor rectilinear extreme wide angle lenses represent reality in quite the way we see it"

Once more you are ignoring my very simple image so you can try and derail the thread with trips down your rabbit holes.

I'll ask a second time since you completely ignored it again, do you not see the similarity to the moon-tilt illusion image from your own Wiki?  It's exactly what is going on, and is obvious.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/3d/Moon_Tilt_Scotland.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 08:26:44 PM
Quote
I really wish you would take your own advice.  ::) Any projection from three dimensional space onto a two dimensional surface is going to cause distortion, this is what happens on the eye. You can't project the surface of a sphere onto a plane without distorting it, it's just geometrically impossible. Please ask any high school math teacher and they can explain it to you.

Your assertions are simply of poor quality and show a lack of associated knowledge. A retina is not a flat surface at the back of our eyes. It is a concave surface. There is a difference between a flat surface and a concave surface. I would recommend that you educate yourself better on how it works.

Also, cameras which can keep straight lines straight do exist. I am surprised that you do not know this.

Quote
Read your own sources, you keep posting ones that contradict yourself.  From that PDF...

"Howerver, a circular object like a ball or person's head, located near the edge of the frame will appear to be somewhat enlarged and will have an oval shape."

So much for your claim that this lens has no distortions.  Really, you are using an ADVERTISEMENT for a product as your source?  You are literally using what a marketing department wrote and taking it as scientific fact as if they aren't going to simplify and exaggerate their product's abilities. Come on, Tom.

That distortion is immaterial to this discussion. We are not studying the shape of the Moon, we are studying straight line paths across the images.

I'm posting what the manufacturer claims. I have a source. It is clearly possible, and you can easily find many wide angle shots showing straight lines on structures in panoramas. You have no source at all for your claim that it is impossible to keep straight lines as straight. This is just something that you said. Where is your source that it is impossible to keep a straight line straight in a camera image? You keep posting things without source.

Quote
I'll ask a second time since you completely ignored it again, do you not see the similarity to the moon-tilt illusion image from your own Wiki?  It's exactly what is going on, and is obvious.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/3d/Moon_Tilt_Scotland.jpg)

And I will repeat this for you again: This is a poor argument. By claiming that we see significant distortion in our vision, you are also suggesting that we can move our head around and get the Moon to point in a variety of different directions.

You must think that we see the world like this, and that this is what causes it:

(https://i.imgur.com/1Ojvi8H.jpg)

If our vision were warped like this then we could just pan our head around and get the Moon to point in a variety of different directions to our warped vision, like we could pan the camera that took the above picture around and get those lines on the building to point differently.

We cannot do this by looking around and putting the Moon in different positions. So you're wrong. This argument that the Moon really points at the Sun and that our vision is warped, and that's why the Moon points upwards, is laughable.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 08:28:14 PM
Quote
I really wish you would take your own advice.  ::) Any projection from three dimensional space onto a two dimensional surface is going to cause distortion, this is what happens on the eye. You can't project the surface of a sphere onto a plane without distorting it, it's just geometrically impossible. Please ask any high school math teacher and they can explain it to you.

Your assertions are trash. A retina is not a flat surface at the back of our eyes. It is a concave surface. There is a difference between a flat surface and a concave surface. I would recommend that you educate yourself better on how it works.

Also, everyone knows that it is possible for there to be a camera lens and configuration that can take a picture of a straight line and keep it straight. Your argument that things are impossible are without merit.

Find me a lens that is 100% distortion free, it doesn't exist.  You are unfamiliar with optics and cameras and are falling for marketing drivel.  All lenses have distortions, even the best, it's just a matter of how small they can get them to be. 

Quote
Read your own sources, you keep posting ones that contradict yourself.  From that PDF...

"Howerver, a circular object like a ball or person's head, located near the edge of the frame will appear to be somewhat enlarged and will have an oval shape."

So much for your claim that this lens has no distortions.  Really, you are using an ADVERTISEMENT for a product as your source?  You are literally using what a marketing department wrote and taking it as scientific fact as if they aren't going to simplify and exaggerate their product's abilities. Come on, Tom.

That distortion is immaterial to this discussion. We are not studying the shape of the Moon, we are studying straight line paths across the images.

You claimed the lens had no distortions, I'm showing you that in your OWN SOURCE that is wrong. That's quite material to the discussion, it's showing your claims and assumptions are incorrect.

I'm posting what the manufacturer claims. I have a source. It is clearly possible, and you can easily find many wide angle shots showing straight lines on structures in panoramas. You have no source at all for you claim that it is impossible to keep straight lines as straight. This is just something that you said. Where is your source that it is impossible to keep a straight line straight in a camera image? You keep posting things without source.

Quote
I'll ask a second time since you completely ignored it again, do you not see the similarity to the moon-tilt illusion image from your own Wiki?  It's exactly what is going on, and is obvious.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/3d/Moon_Tilt_Scotland.jpg)

And I will repeat this for you again: This is a poor argument. By claiming that we see significant distortion in our vision, you are also suggesting that we can move our head around and get the Moon to point in a variety of different directions.

You calling it a poor argument doesn't make it so.

I'm replicating EXACTLY the moon-tilt illusion with my own light source and camera.  Are you claiming those two pictures are nothing alike?  Both show curving light paths, both show shadows going in directions other than straight from the source. It should be obvious to anyone looking at it.

And I am not suggesting we can make the moon 'point in a variety of different directions', that is entirely your own confusion speaking there. 

I'm showing you exactly what causes the moon-tilt illusion.  I can draw arrows and lines on it if that would help you understand it.

You must think that we see the world like this, and that this is what causes it:

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

If our vision were warped like this then we could just pan our head around and get the Moon to point in a variety of different directions to our warped vision, like we could pan the camera that took that picutre around and get those lines to point differently.

We cannot do this by looking around and putting the Moon in different positions. So you're wrong.

Now this is pretty funny because yes, that is what is projected on our retinas, a distorted view of the world that our brains correct into the images that we 'see'.  You are ignoring all the processing of the raw image data that our retinas detect.  Do you think that our eyeballs are the entirety of our visual perception?  There is a rather substantial portion of our brains devoted to vision you know.

We see straight lines as curves the further from the center of our retina they get, and for very long lines, like across the entire sky, it gets very curved indeed.

As you yourself pointed out, the retina is curved, and what happens to a straight line projected onto a curved surface I wonder? 
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 09:52:24 PM
Quote
You claimed the lens had no distortions, I'm showing you that in your OWN SOURCE that is wrong. That's quite material to the discussion, it's showing your claims and assumptions are incorrect.

I didn't say anything about the lenses having no possible distortions in this thread. Stop fibbing. I said that rectilinear lenses keep straight lines straight. From the manufacturer's document:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ujcovl6.png)

The important piece is the first part, which says that rectilinear lenses keep straight lines as straight.

Here is what I posted:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: JSS
The simple explanation is that wide angle images either from a camera or the human eye will result in a distorted image.

This is a third explanation for the Moon Tilt Illusion. But this argument is so bad that the Wiki does not bother to address it.

"Wide Angle" does not mandate distortion. Human vision is wide angle and rectilinear, meaning that straight lines stay straight. There are also many wide angle lenses which are rectilinear and can keep straight lines straight.

With human vision we see the world as wide angle and without much distortion. The quote from the manufacturer says that the rectilinear lens is different from human vision and that there will be some stretching. In regards to straight lines across the image the rectilinear lens provides the best representation of human vision, however.

This is the subject we are concerned with, whether it is possible to keep straight lines straight in a wide angle lens. It is possible. I don't know where you got your information that wide angle lenses will always introduce distortion into a straight line, but it's wrong. It clearly says:

"A rectilinear wide angle lens on the other hand renders all straight lines in the subject as straight lines in the image"

See that? That means you are wrong. It specifically says that it preserves straight lines. This is the purpose of a rectilinear lens.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 10:10:05 PM
You must think that we see the world like this, and that this is what causes it:

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

If our vision were warped like this then we could just pan our head around and get the Moon to point in a variety of different directions to our warped vision, like we could pan the camera that took that picutre around and get those lines to point differently.

We cannot do this by looking around and putting the Moon in different positions. So you're wrong.

Now this is pretty funny because yes, that is what is projected on our retinas, a distorted view of the world that our brains correct into the images that we 'see'.  You are ignoring all the processing of the raw image data that our retinas detect.  Do you think that our eyeballs are the entirety of our visual perception?  There is a rather substantial portion of our brains devoted to vision you know.

We see straight lines as curves the further from the center of our retina they get, and for very long lines, like across the entire sky, it gets very curved indeed.

As you yourself pointed out, the retina is curved, and what happens to a straight line projected onto a curved surface I wonder?

And we see that your argument has devolved into the nonsense that it is. You are introducing absurdities of how the retina works without reference, based on what you "think" is happening. Now you are claiming gibberish about either our eyes or brains turning the Moon to point upwards.  ::)

Why doesn't our brain also turn the Moon to be parallel with the horizon or point downwards when the moon is in the center or bottom of our vision? This "explanation" based on distortion inherent in vision or the brain is untenable and just gets continuously desperate the more you double down on this effect.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Longtitube on February 19, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at in depth, and is easily accessible - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Yes, the Moon Tilt Illusion is really easy to work with and all you need is a ping pong ball - cheap, simple, inexpensive. You also need a view of the Sun and the waxing or waning gibbous Moon in the sky at the same time, which is quite easy this weekend not long before sunset - it's a good time to demonstrate the illusion of the Moon's shadow line (called the terminator line - the transition from lit area to unlit area) appearing to be out of line with the direction to the Sun. The references quoted in the wiki article Tom mentions explain the appearance quite well.

So which way should the line show to the Sun? First of all, do a little investigation nearer home: stand with the Sun at right angles to where you're facing. Let's say the Sun is off to your left and you then hold the ping pong ball, between finger and thumb, in front of you at eye level: you will see the ball half lit and half in shadow and a right angle from the shadow line across the lit area will point back to the Sun at your left.

(https://i.imgur.com/TPTa4AW.jpg)

Next try facing the Sun and hold the ball between your knees so you're looking straight down at it: you will again see the ball half lit, half in shadow and a right angle from the shadow line across the lit area will point back to the Sun in front of you. Stand with your back to the Sun and hold the ball directly above your head: again the half-lit, half-shadowed appearance and you now know which way the shadow line indicates towards the Sun behind you.

Now the fun starts: stand with the Sun behind one shoulder and look at the shadow line on the ball at eye level: the ball now appears more lit than unlit but the shadow line still shows the correct direction back towards the Sun. Note that it's only your viewpoint that has changed, which is why you see more of the lit area than the unlit. Now move the ball down to about waist height and you'll see the shadow line seems to show the Sun is now lower in the sky, perhaps even showing the Sun is below ground level! Has the light suddenly changed direction? No...

With the Sun still behind your shoulder, hold the ball above eye level and the shadow line now indicates the Sun is higher in the sky than before. So has the light again changed direction? No: move the ball back to eye level and turn to face at right angles to the Sun and the shadow line will again show the correct direction!

So at what position will the shadow line on the ball match the shadow line on the Moon? Move the ball around and compare: up, down, left and right until the two match: move the ball closer and further away from your eye too to see if that makes any difference. spoiler: the ball's shadow line and the Moon's shadow line will match when the ball is in line between your eye and the Moon.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WIG3DDaJ30s/WdT1RerAr1I/AAAAAAAAE_g/rI3YlP2LbpcTzfAByQvCUags0x7a1BlhACLcBGAs/s640/sunlight-is-very-parallel-or-else-it-couldnt-do-this.jpg)


So is the Moon's shadow tilted away from where it 'should' be? Do we need an esoteric light-bending explanation for this? No, we don't. Feel free to draw your own conclusions about Electromagnetic Acceleration (EA) after you've done the experiment
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on February 19, 2021, 10:32:26 PM
The string experiment is unable to distinguish whether something is pointing at something else.

(https://i.imgur.com/iwEwtS7.jpg)

From a ground level angle:

(https://i.imgur.com/kxTpUG7.png)

We can connect a string between them. The Purple Cone must be pointing at the Sun. ::)

Why would you think the cone is pointing at the sun. It is clearly pointing away from it if you add a little contrast to show that it is a 3D cone and not sort of a just a triangle:

(https://i.imgur.com/MSQT1Sa.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 10:44:04 PM
Quote
You claimed the lens had no distortions, I'm showing you that in your OWN SOURCE that is wrong. That's quite material to the discussion, it's showing your claims and assumptions are incorrect.

I didn't say anything about the lenses having no possible distortions in this thread. Stop lying. I said that rectilinear lenses keep straight lines straight. From the manufacturer's document:

Tom, what do you think distortions do to straight lines?  ::)

All lenses distort, all lenses curve lines even if that curve is difficult to measure. It's still there. It can't work any other way, please refer to basic geometry. Or ask a photographer. I own several expensive lenses designed to be distortion free and they ALMOST are, but even they show visible bending at the corners.

Please don't believe every press release and marketing brochure you read... they do exaggerate claims you know.  Blindly repeating stuff you read in an advertisement is going to lead you to being misinformed like you are.

The facts are as plain as day, the moon-tilt illusion is not real, as shown by my replicating the effect.  It took me all of 2 minutes to do this.

You still have no answer as to why my experiment isn't valid.  It shows the exact same effect as the moon-tilt illusion and you have given no reason why we can't see the same thing with the Sun and Moon.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 10:48:14 PM
You must think that we see the world like this, and that this is what causes it:

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

If our vision were warped like this then we could just pan our head around and get the Moon to point in a variety of different directions to our warped vision, like we could pan the camera that took that picutre around and get those lines to point differently.

We cannot do this by looking around and putting the Moon in different positions. So you're wrong.

Now this is pretty funny because yes, that is what is projected on our retinas, a distorted view of the world that our brains correct into the images that we 'see'.  You are ignoring all the processing of the raw image data that our retinas detect.  Do you think that our eyeballs are the entirety of our visual perception?  There is a rather substantial portion of our brains devoted to vision you know.

We see straight lines as curves the further from the center of our retina they get, and for very long lines, like across the entire sky, it gets very curved indeed.

As you yourself pointed out, the retina is curved, and what happens to a straight line projected onto a curved surface I wonder?

And we see that your argument has devolved into the nonsense that it is. You are introducing absurdities of how the retina works without reference, based on what you "think" is happening. Now you are claiming gibberish about either our eyes or brains turning the Moon to point upwards.  ::)

Why doesn't our brain also turn the Moon to be parallel with the horizon or point downwards when the moon is in the center or bottom of our vision? This "explanation" based on distortion inherent in vision or the brain is untenable and just gets continuously desperate the more you double down on this effect.

No, Tom I am not.  You're the ones making these claims and trying to attribute them to me. Don't put words in my mouth just because you can't ague with what I am actually saying.

Our eyes do not see the world perfectly, our brain does it's best to compensate but sometimes gets things wrong.

What do you think illusions are, Tom?  Things we see that are not real because our brains are tricked into seeing them.  Why do you think illusions work, or do you think they are all lies?  ::)

Why not look up how the human vision system works, you will find there is a lot going on.  I'm not sure how you think it all works, but clearly you are missing a great deal of it.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 10:59:28 PM
The string experiment is unable to distinguish whether something is pointing at something else.

(https://i.imgur.com/iwEwtS7.jpg)

From a ground level angle:

(https://i.imgur.com/kxTpUG7.png)

We can connect a string between them. The Purple Cone must be pointing at the Sun. ::)

Why would you think the cone is pointing at the sun. It is clearly pointing away from it if you add a little contrast to show that it is a 3D cone and not sort of a just a triangle:

(https://i.imgur.com/MSQT1Sa.jpg)

This point of discussion is poor. There are no such reference points with the Moon.

(https://i.imgur.com/v9T28ni.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0Riz8aT.png)

Wow! We can connect a string between them. The illuminated portion of the Moon must be pointed at the Sun. ::)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 11:01:00 PM
This point of discussion is poor. There are no such reference points with the Moon.

Yes there is, it's the terminator and you draw a line perpendicular out from it and it will meet the Sun. We have mentioned this several times, did you forget, or not understand it?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
The terminator actually suggests that the light source which illuminates the Moon is not coming from the Sun's direction. This is the crux of the issue and what you are failing to address.

http://www.astropix.com/html/l_story/moonill.html

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)

“ 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. ”
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 19, 2021, 11:20:05 PM
The terminator actually suggests that the light source which illuminates the Moon is not coming from the Sun's direction. This is the crux of the issue and what you are failing to address.

http://www.astropix.com/html/l_story/moonill.html

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)

Tom, I'm addressing that exact issue.

Did you not see this picture I took? 

The terminator actually suggests that the light source which illuminates the lampshade is not coming from the flashlights's direction

It's exactly the same as the picture above.

How do you not understand this?   ???

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2021, 11:27:28 PM
Wow! We can connect a string between them. The illuminated portion of the Moon must be pointed at the Sun. ::)
That continues to be a false equivalence.
Because light travels in straight lines, not in crazy U bends like it would have to for your example to be valid.
So in your diagram if the terminator was as you have it then the “sun” can’t be illuminating the moon, unless light is taking some crazy path which in real life it does not.
In real life light travels in straight lines so the line perpendicular to the terminator must point at the light source. The string experiment demonstrates that it does, contrary to how it appears. It proves that the apparent misalignment is simply an optical illusion.

Can you please explain the FE explanation for this illusion with a diagram and show how this is a prediction of EA as your Wiki claims.
Your inability to do this is telling.

Perhaps you could
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 11:30:13 PM
The terminator actually suggests that the light source which illuminates the Moon is not coming from the Sun's direction. This is the crux of the issue and what you are failing to address.

http://www.astropix.com/html/l_story/moonill.html

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)

Tom, I'm addressing that exact issue.

Did you not see this picture I took? 

The terminator actually suggests that the light source which illuminates the lampshade is not coming from the flashlights's direction

It's exactly the same as the picture above.

How do you not understand this?   ???

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

The light is curving because one of those pictures was taken with a distorted lens.

If we saw the world with distortion then the direction of the the moon's illuminated area would change direction depending on where it was in our visual field. Yet, this is not the case.

(https://i.imgur.com/fYaNSBR.png)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2021, 11:47:31 PM
If we saw distortion in our visual field it should also be testable. You should be able to see a pencil in your visual field point in various directions based on where it was.

(https://i.imgur.com/eysTzIQ.png)

Clearly, this is nonsense.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on February 19, 2021, 11:55:00 PM
The string experiment is unable to distinguish whether something is pointing at something else.

(https://i.imgur.com/iwEwtS7.jpg)

From a ground level angle:

(https://i.imgur.com/kxTpUG7.png)

We can connect a string between them. The Purple Cone must be pointing at the Sun. ::)

Why would you think the cone is pointing at the sun. It is clearly pointing away from it if you add a little contrast to show that it is a 3D cone and not sort of a just a triangle:

(https://i.imgur.com/MSQT1Sa.jpg)

This point of discussion is poor. There are no such reference points with the Moon.

Then why did you use a cone with its pointy reference point and falsely claim it was pointing at the ball? Seems like you kicked off the poor discussion with your poor example.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 12:08:46 AM
The terminator actually suggests that the light source which illuminates the Moon is not coming from the Sun's direction. This is the crux of the issue and what you are failing to address.

http://www.astropix.com/html/l_story/moonill.html

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)

Tom, I'm addressing that exact issue.

Did you not see this picture I took? 

The terminator actually suggests that the light source which illuminates the lampshade is not coming from the flashlights's direction

It's exactly the same as the picture above.

How do you not understand this?   ???

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

The light is curving because one of those pictures was taken with a distorted lens.

Yes, you are so close to getting it!

The light curves in one picture because of lens distortions, so the light could be curving in the other because of... what?

Also lens distortions!

If we saw the world with distortion then the direction of the the moon's illuminated area would change direction depending on where it was in our visual field. Yet, this is not the case.

You are again ignoring the fact that our brains are doing a large amount of processing on what our eyes send it.  You keep ignoring all the optical illusions that can fool our senses... why is it so impossible for you to believe that's the case here as well when it's been proven with my example images that such illusions are possible?


Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2021, 12:56:19 AM
Oh, so our brain makes the Moon rotate but nothing else that we can test. Clearly, your deductive powers are amazing.

This explanation might seem good and well in your mind, but this is clearly more objective nonsense from you. I would suggest working with your RE friends to get your act together and come up with a compelling argument that doesn't rely on tricks the brain plays on us with the Moon but is otherwise untestable.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Iceman on February 20, 2021, 01:00:15 AM
There was a pretty compelling argument with two fingers and a ping pong ball, but we're just going to ignore that again I guess
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 01:06:14 AM
Oh, so our brain makes the Moon rotate but nothing else that we can test. Clearly, your deductive powers are amazing.

This explanation might seem good and well in your mind, but this is clearly more objective nonsense from you. I would suggest getting your act together and work with your RE friends on a  compelling argument that doesn't rely on tricks the brain plays on us with the Moon but is otherwise untestable.

No To, you are the only one who is confused and thinking 'our brain makes the Moon rotate'.  That's your statement, not anyone elses.

I'm not sure if you haven't been paying attention but we CAN test this.  The string test works fine, and I'll see if I can't perform some other tests on my own when I can see the Sun again. 

And as I have shown many times, I did a test with my camera to duplicate the moon-tilt illusion, and it worked. It shows EXACTLY what other photos of the Sun and Moon show. That's compelling evidence to anyone with working deductive powers.

It's all quite testable, and has been tested, and has shown that the Moon's terminator does in fact line up with the Sun.

If your only arguments is putting words in peoples mouths and ignoring posted evidence, then perhaps you should admit defeat on this one.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2021, 01:33:53 AM
Quote from: JSS
No To, you are the only one who is confused and thinking 'our brain makes the Moon rotate'.  That's your statement, not anyone elses.

I'm not sure if you haven't been paying attention but we CAN test this.  The string test works fine, and I'll see if I can't perform some other tests on my own when I can see the Sun again.

So your answer is that we can't test this with pencils or objects around us. Only the Moon does this.

And we need to use the string experiment, which we know is not reliable to show where bodies are pointing, to prove your optical illusion of the brain and to prove that the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing at the Sun.

Got it. You have nothing for us then. Just stop. You don't have an explanation for this. Your explanation has devolved into arguing that this applies to some objects but not others, and that we need to use fallacious experiments to prove your unintelligible illusions.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 01:40:11 AM
Quote from: JSS
No To, you are the only one who is confused and thinking 'our brain makes the Moon rotate'.  That's your statement, not anyone elses.

I'm not sure if you haven't been paying attention but we CAN test this.  The string test works fine, and I'll see if I can't perform some other tests on my own when I can see the Sun again.

So your answer is that we can't test this with pencils or objects around us. Only the Moon does this.

You're making things up again, nowhere did I say this.

And Tom... I did in fact test this with objects around us.  Are you even paying attention?  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

And we need to use the string experiment, which we know is not reliable to show where bodies are pointing, to prove your optical illusion of the brain and to prove that the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing at the Sun.

No, you seem to think it's unreliable for unknown reasons, the rest of us understand how it works.  It's been explained to you enough, figure it out.

Got it. You have nothing for us then. Just stop. You don't have an explanation for this. Your explanation has devolved into arguing that this applies to some objects but not others, and that we need to use fallacious experiments to prove your unintelligible illusions.

No Tom, you are once more putting words in my mouth and only showcasing your own confusion.  I'm pretty clear in stating the moon-tilt illusion is what happens when you take a wide angle picture of a straight line and it appears curved.

If you can't understand that simple concept, perhaps you need to stop until you can understand it.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: scomato on February 20, 2021, 01:42:03 AM
Oh, so our brain makes the Moon rotate but nothing else that we can test. Clearly, your deductive powers are amazing.

This explanation might seem good and well in your mind, but this is clearly more objective nonsense from you. I would suggest working with your RE friends to get your act together and come up with a compelling argument that doesn't rely on tricks the brain plays on us with the Moon but is otherwise untestable.

Tom, here is a simple test I can do with the moon. I was taught this experiment in the 1st grade when we started to learn about the Earth, Moon and Solar System. I go outside into an empty field (no artificial or reflected light sources) during the day when the moon is visible in the sky, and I hold out a ping pong ball in the air. The illumination and shadow of the ping pong ball is always the same as the illumination and shadow of the moon.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZDL3I6f.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/z8UuUNV.png)

This would suggest that both the moon and the ping pong ball are both being lit by parallel light rays being emitted by the sun. This, combined with lunar and solar eclipses, proves conclusively that the Earth is Round, that the Moon orbits the Earth, and that the Earth orbits the Sun.

(https://i.gifer.com/OjkI.gif)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2021, 01:43:36 AM
Quote from: scomato
balls

You are using a close range perspective effect with a ball at close range to get it to point like the Moon. With slight movements around the ball you can get it to point in a variety of different directions.

If you are instructing people to hold out an object and get it to point like the moon and align them near each other you are just telling them to use close range perspective effects to get your desired result.

Close range perspective effects are incredibly flexible and dynamic as to where you can get a body to point.

I took a scene that uses three bodies of interest (cones). There is a green cone that points parallel, a purple cone that is tilted upwards, and a yellow cone that tilts downwards. The purple and yellow cones are pushed further back into the background than the green cone. The green cone is near a position over the work plane (you can see part of its shadow on it)

Pre-Experiment Overview Angle 1:

(https://i.imgur.com/Cq2bXgq.png)

Pre-Experiment Overview Angle 2:

(https://i.imgur.com/xQGwNaG.png)

It wasn't that hard to move the camera around and find a point where the green cone was pointing in the same direction like the purple and yellow cones. I'm moving the camera here, not the cones.

In this one I got it to align with purple:

(https://i.imgur.com/7YcYZGw.png)

In this one I got it to align with yellow:

(https://i.imgur.com/m7LVtOX.png)

The possibilities are so dynamic that I also have some control of how far away I want the objects to be from each other while pointing in the same direction. Here is the green cone pointing like the purple cone, but this time green and purple seem to be further away from each other:

(https://i.imgur.com/5pQEzSF.png)

Again, I only moved the camera, not the bodies.


Quote
This would suggest that both the moon and the ping pong ball are both being lit by parallel light rays being emitted by the sun. This, combined with lunar and solar eclipses, proves conclusively that the Earth is Round, that the Moon orbits the Earth, and that the Earth orbits the Sun.

(https://i.gifer.com/OjkI.gif)

Nope. Look at how the phases work in the FE model. The Moon is also on the opposite side of the Sun during Full Moon - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Lunar_Phases

If your argument is that similar phases appear when you hold out a ball, then holding out a ball during Full Moon will also give a Full Moon to the ball in the FE model when your back faces the Sun.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 01:50:45 AM
You are using a close range perspective effect with a ball at close range to get it to point like the Moon. With slight movements around the ball you can get it to point in a variety of different directions.

If you are instructing people to hold out an object and get it to point like the moon and align them near each other you are just telling them to use close range perspective effects to get your desired result.

Wrong.

You can't "point" a sphere in any direction you want!  What are you even thinking here.

No matter how you hold or rotate it, the shadow will always be facing away from the light source. 

Get a ball and try this yourself before speaking more nonsense.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2021, 02:00:19 AM
No, I didn't say "any direction". I said a variety of different directions. You can use close range perspective effects to get a ball or a pencil or any close range object to point upwards or downwards to match something in the distance very easily.

As for why the ball "generally" matches the Moon's phase in relation to the Sun, the ball will also be full with your back to the sun in the FE model during the times near Full Moon. This "ball experiment" shows nothing. I would suggest looking further into this and actually coming up with something that can only be true in your model.  During the time near Full Moon holding out a ball with your back to the sun on the horizon will cause the ball to be full.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Lunar_Phases

(https://i.imgur.com/69oblZD.jpg)

A man holds out a ball sometime during the gibbous phases. Sun is behind him setting on the horizon due to EA. The ball he holds out is full.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 02:08:35 AM
No, I didn't say "any direction". I said a variety of different directions. You can use close range perspective effects to get a ball or a pencil or any close range object to point upwards or downwards to match something in the distance very easily.

Prove it. The next time the Sun and Moon are out, get a ping pong ball and hold it up in front of the Moon and turn and spin however you want to get a picture of both where the shadows don't match.

Take pictures and show us this magical "close range perspective effect" of yours.

If you actually try this, you will see how wrong you are.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2021, 02:36:46 AM
No, I didn't say "any direction". I said a variety of different directions. You can use close range perspective effects to get a ball or a pencil or any close range object to point upwards or downwards to match something in the distance very easily.

Prove it. The next time the Sun and Moon are out, get a ping pong ball and hold it up in front of the Moon and turn and spin however you want to get a picture of both where the shadows don't match.

Take pictures and show us this magical "close range perspective effect" of yours.

If you actually try this, you will see how wrong you are.

Examples demonstrating this were already given. An example was given with a green parallel cone which shifted in angle to point upwards or downwards to match the purple or yellow cones in the background. I could move the camera in the scene and get the green cone to point in a variety of different directions.

When you move your view to below an object it shifts in angle to point upwards. Looking at a body from different orientations will cause it to change angle.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/86/Pencil-Tilt-Vertical.gif)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 02:41:48 AM
No, I didn't say "any direction". I said a variety of different directions. You can use close range perspective effects to get a ball or a pencil or any close range object to point upwards or downwards to match something in the distance very easily.

Prove it. The next time the Sun and Moon are out, get a ping pong ball and hold it up in front of the Moon and turn and spin however you want to get a picture of both where the shadows don't match.

Take pictures and show us this magical "close range perspective effect" of yours.

If you actually try this, you will see how wrong you are.

Examples demonstrating this were already given. An example was given with a green parallel cone which pointed upwards or downwards to match the purple or yellow cones in the background. I could move the camera in the scene and get the green cone to point in a variety of different directions.

Tom, a cone is not a sphere. ::)

Seriously.  Actually try what you're describing.  You might learn something.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: scomato on February 20, 2021, 03:31:34 AM
No, I didn't say "any direction". I said a variety of different directions. You can use close range perspective effects to get a ball or a pencil or any close range object to point upwards or downwards to match something in the distance very easily.

As for why the ball "generally" matches the Moon's phase in relation to the Sun, the ball will also be full with your back to the sun in the FE model during the times near Full Moon. This "ball experiment" shows nothing. I would suggest looking further into this and actually coming up with something that can only be true in your model.  During the time near Full Moon holding out a ball with your back to the sun on the horizon will cause the ball to be full.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Lunar_Phases

(https://i.imgur.com/69oblZD.jpg)

A man holds out a ball sometime during the gibbous phases. Sun is behind him setting on the horizon due to EA. The ball he holds out is full.

I don't know why you put "generally" in quotes because this observation is perfect. Try it yourself!

I am not sure also what you mean by the illumination of the ball being influenced by my perspective of an observer? In your demonstration you are changing the camera position around the scene, until you get a view where the cones are pointed in the same direction. but how does that translate into the real world at all?

I also don't see the relevance of the direction of pointed cones - we are talking about ping pong balls. Balls can't be pointed in any direction, they are balls.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on February 20, 2021, 05:28:42 AM
The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at in depth, and is easily accessible - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Although RE claims to have answers for this, those answers really don't work.

Actually the answers do work, even mathematically, you just purposefully omitted them.

At the top of your Moon Tilt Illusion wiki page you cite and heavily quote this paper:

The Moon Tilt Illusion
Professor Myers at the University of Pennsylvania provides the following description:
http://www.upenn.edu/emeritus/essays/MyersMoon.html

What you leave out is this whole section under the heading: 1 The Nature of the Illusion which is regarding figure 1 which you have in the wiki as well you just failed to publish the description of what figure 1 is all about. Here it is for reference:

(https://i.imgur.com/NSzCYzS.png)

The photograph in Figure 1 provides an example of the moon tilt illusion. The moon’s illumination is observed to be coming from above, even though the moon is high in the sky and the sun had set in the west one hour before this photo was taken. The moon is 45◦ above the horizon in the southeast, 80% illuminated by light from the sun striking the moon at an angle of 17◦ above the horizontal, as shown by the arrow drawn on the photograph. Our intuition (i.e., the incorrect perception that creates the illusion) is that given the relative positions of the sun and the moon, the light from the sun should be striking the moon from below. The moon tilt illusion is thus the perceived discrepancy between the angle of illumination of the moon that we observe (and can capture photographically with a camera pointed at the moon) and the angle that we expect, based on the known locations of the sun and the moon in the sky.

In section 3, Cause of Moon Tilt Illusion she continues:

The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account the rules of perspective that dictate that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun. This perceptual disconnect occurs because the observer cannot see the light ray itself, but only its starting position at the sun and the angle at which it strikes the moon. Without any other visual cues to provide more information, he is perceptually unable to envision how the slope of a visible line overhead changes with viewing angle due to perspective projection.

The paper continues on to show exactly how the Moon Tilt Illusion manifests itself mathematically, from an RE perspective.

What is odd is that you are heavily citing a paper in your wiki that directly contradicts everything you are claiming. So what is that all about?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2021, 07:08:02 AM
No. The Wiki does go over the explanations in that document. I would suggest you read all of it. Professor Myers says that the Moon Tilt Illusion is caused by lines turning into curves on the "celestial sphere":

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

'In the paper The Moon Tilt Illusion (Archive) by Adrea and Alan Myers, the following is stated:

  “ The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere. Minnaert [5] gives only a passing reference: “...the line connecting the horns of the moon, between its first quarter and full moon, for instance, does not appear to be at all perpendicular to the direction from sun to moon; we apparently think of this direction as being a curved line. Fix this direction by stretching a piece of string taut in front of your eye; however unlikely it may have seemed to you at first you will now perceive that the condition of perpendicularity is satisfied”. An article by Sch¨olkopf [8] documents the illusion in an experiment involving 14 subjects by having them indicate their expectation of how the moon’s illumination should be oriented with respect to the position of the (visible) sun. He reports that an average discrepancy of 12◦ is perceived by the subjects between the observable versus expected orientation of the moon’s bright limb. Schott’s website entitled “ ‘Falsche’ Mondneigung” (‘False’ Moontilt) [9] is devoted to the moon tilt illusion, and features illustrations and useful links. Schott correctly proposes to quantify the effect by comparing the observed tilt angle with the angle from horizontal of the line connecting the moon and sun, but an error in geometry leads to an incorrect expression for the expected tilt. A paper by Glaeser and Schott [2], approaching the phenomenon via the principles of photography, show that the magnitude of the illusion could in theory be measured through comparison of a close-up shot of the moon with a photograph containing both sun and moon, with the camera directed in a specified direction between them (although no equations are given). However, as they point out, in practice it is not feasible since even a wide-angle lens cannot capture both sun and moon in a photo with azimuth differences for which the illusion can be most clearly observed (between 90◦ and 180◦). Berry[1] proposed using a star chart, which is a zenith-center stereoscopic projection of the celestial sphere onto a flat surface, to define the moon tilt illusion as the angle between the projected great circle and a straight moon-sun line drawn on the same chart “mimicking how we might see the sky when lying on our back looking up”. Clearly, there exists a lack of consensus in the literature about the explanation of the moon tilt illusion and disagreement about the best way to describe it.

~

Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because locations 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 surrounding 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. ”

We are told that straight lines become curved when looking into the sky because of the "celestial sphere" which exists above our heads.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Celestial_Sphere_2

'Previously, we had read that Professor Myers told us about the curving of light on the celestial sphere as cause of the Moon Tilt Illusion. He states:

  “ 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. [2] ”

  “ The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere [3] ”

  “ The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere. [4] ”'
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Longtitube on February 20, 2021, 08:22:06 AM
This is all tremendously entertaining, Tom, I do hope this goes on a few more pages. What sort of experiment can the OP do with the Moon Tilt Illusion? And have you done as I have, have you actually tried the ping pong ball experiment yourself? Do let us know!
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 20, 2021, 10:06:29 AM
And we need to use the string experiment, which we know is not reliable to show where bodies are pointing, to prove your optical illusion of the brain and to prove that the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing at the Sun.
Once again, bodies don't point. If a spherical object is illuminated by a distant light source - distant enough that the light rays are in effect parallel - then the light source will illuminate half the object. And the light must be coming from a direction perpendicular to the terminator on the object

(https://i.ibb.co/jwtCDRH/MoonSun.jpg)

In your example you can see from the 3D view that the cone doesn't point at the sun, but the point of the string experiment is that it demonstrates that the sun could be illuminating the moon. To the naked eye it looks like it can't because of the angles, the string demonstrates that this is merely an optical illusion and there is indeed a straight line perpendicular to the terminator on the moon which intersects the sun. And sure, it could be that the light is doing a weird arc away from us and hitting the moon but that isn't how light operates. Maybe this is where you think EA helps but your continued inability to explain how this illusion is a prediction of EA is noted, and very telling. All you have to do is draw a diagram to demonstrate.

You are using a close range perspective effect with a ball at close range to get it to point like the Moon. With slight movements around the ball you can get it to point in a variety of different directions.

As usual, your inability to understand perspective is causing you to miss the point of this experiment and the significance of the result.
Because perspective is important here. The moon is lit by a distance sun. In real life half of the moon is always illuminated, half is always in darkness.
But because of our changing perspective over time we don't always see a half moon. Sometimes we see almost all of the illuminated side, sometimes we see almost none.

The point is IF the sun is distant and illuminating the moon then if you hold up a ball so that from your perspective it lines up with the moon then the parallel rays from the sun should illuminate the ball in the same way. So you should see the same "phase" on the ball as you do the moon. "A" is your viewing position:

(https://i.ibb.co/KzXFm62/Moon-Ping-Pong.png)

If you don't line them up then yes, you'll see different phases. That's the exact point.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 20, 2021, 12:05:42 PM
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Celestial_Sphere_2

'Previously, we had read that Professor Myers told us about the curving of light on the celestial sphere as cause of the Moon Tilt Illusion. He states:

  “ 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. [2] ”

  “ The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere [3] ”

  “ The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere. [4] ”'

No Tom, you and the Wiki have completely misunderstood these quotes.  The celestial sphere doesn't 'cause' anything because it's not real.

You seem to think when astronomers talk about the celestial sphere that they are talking about an actual, physical sphere up there that holds all the stars, like your dome.  This is wrong and shows your total lack of comprehension on this subject.  The celestial sphere is just shorthand for talking about objects so far away from us that they in effect, can be treated mathematically as being a sphere.  But no astronomer thinks there is an actual sphere, and even the shorthand is discarded when measuring parallax or other precise observations.

So all these quotes are saying the same thing that that everyone else here is trying to teach you... that you can't project from a 3d space onto a 2d object without causing distortions and turning lines into curves. Please try and learn this concept, it's important.

Just like this image I took proves, mapping a 3d space onto the 2d camera sensor can make straight lines look curved.

It's really that simple, you just can't seem to understand when extra details are added, as your confusion over this paper and not knowing what a celestial sphere is.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

Will you try the ping pong ball experiment?  I'm very curious to see your results and your techniques for 'pointing a sphere'. 

  “ 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. [2] ”

“ The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere. [4] ”'

Once again the point of your own quotes seems to go right over your head.  The moon-tilt illusion is not taught to astronomers because with their knowledge it's obvious to what causes it, and thus they don't need it explained to them.  Because "they know" already.  It's blindingly obvious to anyone witch basic knowledge of astronomy or geometry why this is the case.

You however, do not have either of these.  Please read your own sources more carefully as you are showing a concerning lack of understanding them.  Copy-pasting quotes from sources you don't take the time to fully understand is a poor, lazy and ineffective debating technique and is no substitute for actually learning the material.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: scomato on February 20, 2021, 09:59:34 PM
Here is a better diagram and explanation of the Moon Tilt Illusion. Tom, you are fundamentally misunderstanding and misrepresenting several concepts simultaneously, which is why your posts are not making any sense.

http://chrisjones.id.au/MoonIllusion/

When the moon and the sun are both visible in the sky, but not close together, the sunlight often appears to illuminate the moon from a high angle, even when the sun is closer to the horizon than the moon.

As seen in an orthogonal projection, the lunar terminator (the boundary of the illuminated hemisphere of the moon) appears from Earth as a half-ellipse. The major axis of the ellipse is perpendicular to the sun's direction from the moon: the sun lies on an extension of the minor axis.

(http://chrisjones.id.au/MoonIllusion/sunmoon.jpg)

The illusion occurs when the moon and sun are separated by a wide angle, so that they are perceived relative to the horizon, as if in a panorama. A panoramic photograph is a cylindrical projection. In this projection, most straight lines project as sinusoidal curves. The moon-sun line is curved, unless the moon and sun are on the horizon or directly above one another.

This curve can be seen in the figure below, which shows a cylindrical projection of the sky covering 60° of altitude and 180° of azimuth. Below it is an isometric drawing showing how the moon and the sun project on to the cylinder from the viewpoint.

(https://i.imgur.com/w1FVPyR.gif)

The above figure animates to show the radius of the cylinder increasing until it becomes a plane. The projection then becomes a rectilinear one, in which all straight lines remain straight. As the cylinders are tangent to the plane at the moon's position, the angle of the terminator remains constant throughout the animation.

The rectilinear projection is like a wide-angle photograph. Angular displacements are progressively magnified away from the optical centre, as revealed by the grid lines. The angle of the terminator is thus slightly different than it would appear if looking directly up at the moon.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 12:30:08 AM
More on the fallacious ball experiment.

Foreground and background balls misaligned:

(https://i.imgur.com/l9GkYEL.png)

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!!

(https://i.imgur.com/5Xx4rF9.png)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 01:10:34 AM
No Tom, you and the Wiki have completely misunderstood these quotes.  The celestial sphere doesn't 'cause' anything because it's not real.

You seem to think when astronomers talk about the celestial sphere that they are talking about an actual, physical sphere up there that holds all the stars, like your dome.  This is wrong and shows your total lack of comprehension on this subject.  The celestial sphere is just shorthand for talking about objects so far away from us that they in effect, can be treated mathematically as being a sphere.  But no astronomer thinks there is an actual sphere, and even the shorthand is discarded when measuring parallax or other precise observations.

Professor Myers clearly attributes the Moon Tilt to the curving of straight lines on the Celestial Sphere. It sounds like you aren't too versed in RE astronomy if you can't understand it.

Quote
It's really that simple, you just can't seem to understand when extra details are added, as your confusion over this paper and not knowing what a celestial sphere is.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

You keep spamming this image, like you think it means something. It doesn't. The top version is curved because it was taken with a distorted lens, as you stated. We do not see the world with significant distortion. This effect in our vision you propose is untestestable, so your effect has no bearing.

I asked you how we could detect your distortion in our visual field and you just posted your image of this scene with the distorted lens again.  ::)

Here is a better diagram and explanation of the Moon Tilt Illusion. Tom, you are fundamentally misunderstanding and misrepresenting several concepts simultaneously, which is why your posts are not making any sense.

http://chrisjones.id.au/MoonIllusion/

When the moon and the sun are both visible in the sky, but not close together, the sunlight often appears to illuminate the moon from a high angle, even when the sun is closer to the horizon than the moon.

As seen in an orthogonal projection, the lunar terminator (the boundary of the illuminated hemisphere of the moon) appears from Earth as a half-ellipse. The major axis of the ellipse is perpendicular to the sun's direction from the moon: the sun lies on an extension of the minor axis.

(http://chrisjones.id.au/MoonIllusion/sunmoon.jpg)

The illusion occurs when the moon and sun are separated by a wide angle, so that they are perceived relative to the horizon, as if in a panorama. A panoramic photograph is a cylindrical projection. In this projection, most straight lines project as sinusoidal curves. The moon-sun line is curved, unless the moon and sun are on the horizon or directly above one another.

This curve can be seen in the figure below, which shows a cylindrical projection of the sky covering 60° of altitude and 180° of azimuth. Below it is an isometric drawing showing how the moon and the sun project on to the cylinder from the viewpoint.

(https://i.imgur.com/w1FVPyR.gif)

The above figure animates to show the radius of the cylinder increasing until it becomes a plane. The projection then becomes a rectilinear one, in which all straight lines remain straight. As the cylinders are tangent to the plane at the moon's position, the angle of the terminator remains constant throughout the animation.

The rectilinear projection is like a wide-angle photograph. Angular displacements are progressively magnified away from the optical centre, as revealed by the grid lines. The angle of the terminator is thus slightly different than it would appear if looking directly up at the moon.

This article by Christopher Jones is just unintelligible gobbledygook and doesn't explain why it occurs.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on February 21, 2021, 01:13:49 AM
No. The Wiki does go over the explanations in that document. I would suggest you read all of it. Professor Myers says that the Moon Tilt Illusion is caused by lines turning into curves on the "celestial sphere":

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

'In the paper The Moon Tilt Illusion (Archive) by Adrea and Alan Myers, the following is stated:

  “ The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere. Minnaert [5] gives only a passing reference: “...the line connecting the horns of the moon, between its first quarter and full moon, for instance, does not appear to be at all perpendicular to the direction from sun to moon; we apparently think of this direction as being a curved line. Fix this direction by stretching a piece of string taut in front of your eye; however unlikely it may have seemed to you at first you will now perceive that the condition of perpendicularity is satisfied”. An article by Sch¨olkopf [8] documents the illusion in an experiment involving 14 subjects by having them indicate their expectation of how the moon’s illumination should be oriented with respect to the position of the (visible) sun. He reports that an average discrepancy of 12◦ is perceived by the subjects between the observable versus expected orientation of the moon’s bright limb. Schott’s website entitled “ ‘Falsche’ Mondneigung” (‘False’ Moontilt) [9] is devoted to the moon tilt illusion, and features illustrations and useful links. Schott correctly proposes to quantify the effect by comparing the observed tilt angle with the angle from horizontal of the line connecting the moon and sun, but an error in geometry leads to an incorrect expression for the expected tilt. A paper by Glaeser and Schott [2], approaching the phenomenon via the principles of photography, show that the magnitude of the illusion could in theory be measured through comparison of a close-up shot of the moon with a photograph containing both sun and moon, with the camera directed in a specified direction between them (although no equations are given). However, as they point out, in practice it is not feasible since even a wide-angle lens cannot capture both sun and moon in a photo with azimuth differences for which the illusion can be most clearly observed (between 90◦ and 180◦). Berry[1] proposed using a star chart, which is a zenith-center stereoscopic projection of the celestial sphere onto a flat surface, to define the moon tilt illusion as the angle between the projected great circle and a straight moon-sun line drawn on the same chart “mimicking how we might see the sky when lying on our back looking up”. Clearly, there exists a lack of consensus in the literature about the explanation of the moon tilt illusion and disagreement about the best way to describe it.

~

Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because locations 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 surrounding 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. ”

We are told that straight lines become curved when looking into the sky because of the "celestial sphere" which exists above our heads.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Celestial_Sphere_2

'Previously, we had read that Professor Myers told us about the curving of light on the celestial sphere as cause of the Moon Tilt Illusion. He states:

  “ 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. [2] ”

  “ The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere [3] ”

  “ The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere. [4] ”'

Like I said, the paper you heavily cite in the wiki directly refutes your claims. They even mathematically prove you wrong. Why you keep going back to a paper that contradicts you, I don't know.

"The conclusion is that the slope of a vector which is straight in 3-D object space changes continuously with the viewing angle of the camera (or the human eye) as it is moved along the line. For a particular viewing angle, the slope is constant and the line is straight. For the series of viewing angles necessary to scan the line from beginning to end, the slope varies. Although the above examples treat straight lines that are parallel to the ground, the observed slope of a straight line in 3-D space of any orientation with respect to the horizontal will change with viewing (or camera) perspective."

(https://i.imgur.com/wUt7dNH.png)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 01:26:31 AM
The Wiki goes over that one too. He has multiple explanations in there. That's the perspective explanation.

From the document:

(https://i.imgur.com/IeL0sYe.jpg)

On the Wiki:

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

Quote
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.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/4b/Moon-Tilt-Perspective-Animation.gif)

Scene zoomed out:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/4e/Moon-Tilt_Zoom-Out.png)

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.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/99/Moon-Tilt-Two-Body.png)

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:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 21, 2021, 01:46:40 AM
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.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Iceman on February 21, 2021, 01:51:46 AM

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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 01:55:42 AM
Quote
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.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on February 21, 2021, 02:04:18 AM
The Wiki goes over that one too. He has multiple explanations in there. That's the perspective explanation.

From the document:

(https://i.imgur.com/IeL0sYe.jpg)

On the Wiki:

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

Quote
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.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/4b/Moon-Tilt-Perspective-Animation.gif)

Scene zoomed out:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/4e/Moon-Tilt_Zoom-Out.png)

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.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/99/Moon-Tilt-Two-Body.png)

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:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 02:16:39 AM

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.

Quote from: 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 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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 21, 2021, 02:35:25 AM
Quote
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.

(https://i.imgur.com/FnMU5hV.jpg)

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on February 21, 2021, 03:00:40 AM
Quote from: 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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: RazaTD on February 21, 2021, 03:33:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 21, 2021, 08:02:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 21, 2021, 04:25:25 PM
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.

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

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 04:34:55 PM
On the topic of the fallacious "ball experiment" -

Look at what Mick West is doing at MetaBunk (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/page-2). 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:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100811-h4i9p-jpg.22884/)

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:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100429-cw1d0-jpg.22882/)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/l9GkYEL.png)

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!!

(https://i.imgur.com/5Xx4rF9.png)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 21, 2021, 04:47:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 21, 2021, 05:03:45 PM
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?

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

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Longtitube on February 21, 2021, 05:10:00 PM
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?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 21, 2021, 05:22:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 06:18:14 PM
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?

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

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.

(https://i.ibb.co/7jdQXBX/moon-perspective1.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/Ned5YVP.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/4TGcY9n.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Iceman on February 21, 2021, 06:22:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 21, 2021, 06:31:22 PM
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?

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

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 21, 2021, 07:36:16 PM
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.

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

Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 07:45:15 PM
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:

(https://i.imgur.com/tfDmYPV.png)

View 1:

(https://i.imgur.com/6ImLtaa.png)

View 2:

(https://i.imgur.com/1FUGE6p.png)

I can move the camera around the closer object and create greater shifts in orientation than a background object.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 21, 2021, 08:01:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/4TGcY9n.jpg)
Why are these lines straight?
What happened to EA?

Can you please explain how the moon tilt illusion is predicted by EA with a diagram?

If you can’t then I suggest you remove that claim from the Wiki.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Longtitube on February 21, 2021, 08:19:06 PM
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.
....
I can move the camera around the closer object and create greater shifts in orientation than a background object.

Indeed you can, but can you explain how the closer the ball (not Rubix Cube, cone or other) is to being in direct line between eye and Moon, the more closely the ball's shadow line matches that of the Moon? If you troubled yourself long enough to try it yourself, you'd find this is the case, but you just don't do experiments, do you?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 08:59:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/4TGcY9n.jpg)
Why are these lines straight?
What happened to EA?

Can you please explain how the moon tilt illusion is predicted by EA with a diagram?

If you can’t then I suggest you remove that claim from the Wiki.

The Sun we see is after EA has made its effect. The light is locally Euclidean. At sunset the light from the apparent Sun touching the horizon is hitting the observer horizontally. Sun is hitting the observer horizontally in his local area.

From the image on the EA page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration), during sunset the observer sees the Sun's light from a horizontal direction in his local area:

(https://i.imgur.com/DzLG1Jd.png)

There are diagrams on how the Moon Tilt works with EA on the Wiki Moon Tilt Illusion page. It's right there in the second section:

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

Quote
Flat Earth Moon Tilt

It has been asked if there is an example of a celestial event that the Flat Earth Theory predicts which the Round Earth Theory does not. The Moon Tilt Illusion is one such example. While RET has difficulty explaining this anomaly, with its professors calling it "counter-intuitive and magical"[1] (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Description), and multiple contradictory and geometrically questionable explanations are put forward in attempt to explain it, the phenomenon is directly predicted by the Flat Earth astronomical model. According to the theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration) light curves upwards over very long distances, is the cause for the rising and setting of celestial bodies, and is responsible for various dome-like observations (https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere). When this scheme of upwardly bending light is applied to the orientation of the Moon it is seen that Electromagnetic Acceleration directly predicts the Moon Tilt Illusion.

Moon Flipped

Due to EA the observer will always see the nearside (underside) of celestial bodies. As result the orientation of the image on opposite sides will be upside-down. The illustration below shows the extremes of the Moon's rising and setting and the upside-down flipping of the Moon's image to observers positioned on opposite sides of the Moon.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/0/09/EA_Moon_Tilt.png/1350px-EA_Moon_Tilt.png)

An observer to the West of the Moon sees the phase pointed upwards away from the horizon, and an observer to the East of the Moon sees the phase pointed downwards towards the horizon.

Moon Tilted

When viewing the Moon at various positions around it, it is seen that the Moon's phase tilts until it matches the opposite orientation. In the below illustration observers A - H are standing around the Moon, viewing it at various positions around it. The Moon over the solid horizon shows the observer's view. The central Moon illustration is the nearside (underside) of the Moon.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/3/3e/EA_Moon_Orientation.png/1200px-EA_Moon_Orientation.png)

Notice that the views on opposite sides of each observer (A - H) are vertically flipped to each other like in the rising and setting side view diagram.

To simulate the view for each observer flip the central nearside face in relation to the observer's orientation around the Moon (positions A - H), so that the observer sees the furthest part of the Moon from his or her position at the closest to that observer's horizon. This represents each observer's view of the Moon.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/8/80/Midmoon-Observer.png/600px-Midmoon-Observer.png)

For instance, Observer C at midmoon is looking to the right (Southward) at the Moon and from that position will see the darkened portion to the left of the Moon's image, with the furthest part of the Moon from Observer C's location at the bottom closest to that observer's horizon. The same may be applied for each observer, relative to their various positions around the Moon. Alternatively, one may take the vertically flipped rising phase for Observer A and rotate that image in 45 degree increments to match the positions of the Observers B - H around the Moon.

EA predicts that between rising and midmoon the Moon's phase will be pointed significantly away from the Earth and Sun, angled upwards above it. At midmoon the illuminated portion of the Moon will be pointing at a right angle in the sky. Between midmoon and setting the phase will be pointing downwards towards the Earth. EA also predicts that the Moon's face will roll and rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South.

Comparison

Compare the EA Moon Tilt diagrams to the diagrams shown at the beginning of the page showing the Moon Tilt Illusion for the Waxing Phases in the North and South.

Moon Tilt Northern Waxing (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/3a/Moon_Tilt_Northern_Waxing.png)
Moon Tilt Southern Waxing (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/a/a9/Moon_Tilt_Southern_Waxing.png)
Northern Waxing Phases at Sunset (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/Lunar_Phases_at_Sunset.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on February 21, 2021, 09:11:33 PM
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?

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

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f1/Moonill.jpg)

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

I'm still waiting for your reasoning for this request, what specific lens you think I should use, and what you think the results would be. 

1. Why do I even need to use a rectilinear lens?  What is your reasoning here?  What is wrong with the lens I used?

2. What rectilinear lens are you saying I should use?  Please specify the sensor format, mm and fov required.  A specific model of lens and camera would also work.  There are thousands of rectilinear lenses out there, you have to be specific to what you are asking for.

3. What do you expect the result to be?  If I take a picture with your rectilinear lens, what is the photo going to look like?  What will it prove?

If you can't answer these questions, then I don't understand why I 'have' to redo it and you can withdraw your request.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Longtitube on February 21, 2021, 09:16:51 PM
There are diagrams on how the Moon Tilt works with EA on the Wiki Moon Tilt Illusion page. It's right there in the second section:

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

And this is precisely the problem. If someone discovers the Moon's shadow alignment is replicated at ground level with a common ping pong ball held between eye and Moon, then what need is there to explain this with Electromagnetic Acceleration? Tom created and has expanded and worked on the Moon Tilt Illusion page in the wiki since 2019 and it would make all his effort rather pointless when it turns out that the illusion is just that, an optical illusion.

It has nothing to do with FE, it neither explains nor is explained by special light-bending ideas like EA – they're simply not needed. Rather like imagining a complex distribution system to get presents from the North Pole to every kid's home in the whole world in a single night and then that snotty kid next door tells you it's just your Mom and Dad: rather galling, but true.

Grow up.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2021, 09:41:16 PM
Quote from: Longtitube
And this is precisely the problem. If someone discovers the Moon's shadow alignment is replicated at ground level with a common ping pong ball held between eye and Moon, then what need is there to explain this with Electromagnetic Acceleration?

EA wasn't made up to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion. The Moon Tilt Illusion is simply a geometric consequence of EA.

RE'ers of all stripes are blasting the internet and literature, searching for explanations and ways to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion in RE under straight line geometry - invoking odd distortion to our vision, perspective effects, celestial spheres, and spamming all manner of specious reasonings, whereas it is simply a geometrical consequence of the FE model.

We didn't search for an answer, it was already there, due to the geometry of the pre-existing model. You know that it's not part of your model, hence the multiple explanations and nonsense.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on February 21, 2021, 09:50:34 PM
Quote from: Longtitube
And this is precisely the problem. If someone discovers the Moon's shadow alignment is replicated at ground level with a common ping pong ball held between eye and Moon, then what need is there to explain this with Electromagnetic Acceleration?

EA wasn't made up to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion. The Moon Tilt Illusion is simply a geometric consequence of EA.

RE'ers of all stripes are blasting the internet and literature, searching for explanations and ways to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion in RE under straight line geometry - invoking odd distortion to our vision, perspective effects, celestial spheres, and spamming all manner of specious reasonings, whereas it is simply a geometrical consequence of the FE model.

We didn't search for an answer, it was already there, due to the geometry of the pre-existing model. You know that it's not part of your model, hence the multiple explanations and nonsense.

Aren't you relying on the Bishop Constant to show the predictability potential of EA? In the wiki it says, "the Bishop constant, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally."

How can you claim that EA is predictable, and even applicable, when it hasn't been able to be used to measure anything experimentally?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 21, 2021, 09:59:08 PM
The Sun we see is after EA has made its effect. The light is locally Euclidean.

Fair enough. I'll agree that works. To be honest, I didn't really understand the Wiki explanation of why this is predicted by EA, but thanks for providing it finally. But I think the implication of your explanation is that the terminator of the moon and the sun are really misaligned. But they aren't. The string experiment proves this.

EA wasn't made up to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion.

Correct, it was made up to explain sunrise and sunset - although I'll note here that you used to explain those by "perspective" and have quietly abandoned that in favour of EA.

Quote
RE'ers of all stripes are blasting the internet and literature, searching for explanations and ways to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion in RE under straight line geometry

It's really easy to explain, although perhaps not that easy to understand. It's an optical illusion. The string experiment demonstrates this. It shows that the line perpendicular to the moon's terminator does indeed intersect the sun, as it should, and that the appearance that it is misaligned is merely an optical illusion. Which shows EA to be incorrect, the light is going in straight lines across the sky even if it appears not to be.
You continuing not to understand that doesn't change that.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Mothra on February 21, 2021, 11:05:06 PM
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/0/09/EA_Moon_Tilt.png/1350px-EA_Moon_Tilt.png)

From what I’ve seen as I try to familiarize myself with what’s in the WIKI is that many of the drawings are drawn with just enough inaccuracy to hide what would actually happen. The above drawing is slightly inaccurate. What is shown is a 1st quarter moon but the center high moon should have the terminator vertical not slanted. This would make the lit side of the moon point straight up when viewed at rise from the west and straight down at set from the east if the drawing was accurate.  Someone else would have to verify this as I live between two mountain ranges so I can not view the moon when it rises or sets on the flat earth. Also, it only depicts what would happen due east and west but not how the moon would be seen at higher latitudes.

If a top down image was drawn showing the sun lighting half the moon and the show the moons circular viewing area on a flat earth I believe that you would notice that the higher latitudes would actually see a significantly different moon tilt.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 22, 2021, 03:23:25 PM
While we're here. Here's another optical illusion

(https://i.ibb.co/QfkzMtj/hering.jpg)

Those horizontal lines don't appear straight. Tom's argument seems to be that because things don't appear a certain way, they can't be that way. The entire point of the string experiment is it "breaks" the illusion. It shows the apparent misalignment between the moon and the sun is merely an optical illusion.

Now, because this is in 3D space it could be that the light is actually bowing away from us, so the string is straight but the light is going in an arc but
a) That's not how light behaves and
b) Even if that was true, that wouldn't explain the illusion, where it looks like the light is arcing across the sky like a rainbow. The string proves that this is not the case.

TL;DR - the brain does a lot of processing of what we see, the moon-tilt illusion and the above image are good examples of how it can be fooled.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2021, 06:28:42 PM
On the "Ball Experiment" -

Bay Area California, Feb 21st, 2021, pictures taken around 5:27 PM PST with a Google Pixel 3 XL Phone.

Image 1:

I placed the ball on a post along the side of a road. The sun was shining from a horizontal direction. The ball is half lit.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/6AMa1fZ.jpg

(https://i.imgur.com/6AMa1fZ.jpg)

Image 2:

Viewpoint from behind the ball, looking at Sun:

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/dahZJsy.jpg

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

Image 3:

From a position front of the ball, with our back to sun, we can see that the illuminated portion of the Moon pointing upwards in the background. See Full Size for detail.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/yXGCLyR.jpg

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

Image 4:

Closeup of the Moon in the background, while zooming in the device created a digital leveling tool on the screen to help ensure the device was level. Compare the orientation to the Moon in the Full Size Image 3 above.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/eSmtd9N.jpg

(https://i.imgur.com/eSmtd9N.jpg)

Image 5:

Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Full Size:  https://i.imgur.com/rSV2mAx.jpg

(https://i.imgur.com/rSV2mAx.jpg)

Another version of the Tilt - https://i.imgur.com/n1cYCrS.jpg

Image 6:

Finally, I turned the device and placed the ball across the screen from the sun on a wide frame. The illuminated portion pointed at the Sun.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/BNazZl6.jpg

(https://i.imgur.com/BNazZl6.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 22, 2021, 06:40:23 PM
Ok. It’s good that you did an experiment.
And what is your conclusion from the results?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 22, 2021, 07:00:24 PM
Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Right. You need to be looking up at the ball so it lines up with the moon so the phase on the moon and the ball line up. I tried to explain why here:

(https://i.ibb.co/KzXFm62/Moon-Ping-Pong.png)

So yes, it is a perspective effect. You seem to see this as a fatal flaw in the experiment when actually it’s the exact point. The phase we see on the moon depends on our perspective.
Only if you line the ball up with the moon are you looking at them from the same perspective and thus the phases are consistent. Hopefully you can see from my diagram that if you place the ball elsewhere then as your photos demonstrate you’ll see a different “phase” on the ball and moon.

This demonstrates that both the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source, a distant sun.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2021, 09:51:26 PM
So yes, it is a perspective effect. You seem to see this as a fatal flaw in the experiment when actually it’s the exact point. The phase we see on the moon depends on our perspective.

As you admit, the experiment is using a perspective effect to get the illuminated portion of the ball to point upwards. This doesn't demonstrate that the Moon is pointing upwards because of a perspective effect. We are using a perspective effect to get the ball to point upwards, when it could alternatively be that the Moon is pointing upwards and we are just matching it.

The experiment is unable to distinguish whether the Moon is actually pointing upwards or not. Previously I had a Moon pointing upwards in the background of a 3D scene and I was moving the camera around a ball in the foreground to match it. Why can't the same thing be going on here?

More on the fallacious ball experiment.

Foreground and background balls misaligned:

(https://i.imgur.com/l9GkYEL.png)

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!!

(https://i.imgur.com/5Xx4rF9.png)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2021, 09:58:09 PM
On the "String Experiment" -

If I were to take a water bottle (red) and hold it out to match the Moon's orientation and where the light is coming from, it would appear that both Moon and water bottle are pointing out into space and not at the Sun.

If I were to take a string (blue) and align it with the ecliptic, the path near where the Sun and Moon travel across the sky, the string might be able to hit the Sun, but this 'string experiment' is unable to distinguish whether the string is aligning with the body you are putting it against.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ecdy1mx.png)

Diagram is more or less similar to what I saw yesterday.

If the Moon and illuminated part of the Moon follows the ecliptic as it moves, aligning the string with the ecliptic would cause the Moon to connect to the Sun. However, this does not show that the illuminated area is pointing at the Sun, any more than being able to connect a string between objects in this scene show that the illuminated area is pointing at the sun:

(https://i.imgur.com/v9T28ni.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0Riz8aT.png)

Wow! We can connect a string between them. The illuminated portion of the Moon must be pointed at the Sun.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 22, 2021, 10:52:03 PM
As you admit, the experiment is using a perspective effect to get the illuminated portion of the ball to point upwards.

It's not an admission as such, more an explanation of why perspective is key in this experiment.
I don't really know what you mean by "perspective effect", you keep using that term as if it means something magic.
Perspective is important here for the reasons I've outlined. I've added a couple of additional "footballs" to my diagram:

You're looking from point A:

(https://i.ibb.co/jkx3WKn/Moon-Ping-Pong2.png)

If you hold the ball to the left and the light source is to the right then you can only see the illuminated side of the ball.
If you hold it to the right then you can only see the dark side of the ball.

It's only if you hold it so it lines up with the moon that the line of sight is the same, the perspective is the same and the "phase" you observe on the ball is the same. Perspective is the reason we see different phases of the moon. In reality it's always half lit, half dark. But because of its changing position as it orbits us that changes our perspective so we see the different phases.

And one key thing to note here is of course the scale in my diagram is hopelessly wrong. In reality the moon is very distant - that's why it doesn't matter where you are on earth, you see the same phase. In the context of the moon being 250,000 miles away, a few thousand miles here and there doesn't significantly change your perspective (although the moon's orientation will be different in the southern hemisphere because you are "upside down" with respect to the northern hemisphere).
But the ball is very close to you so it's very easy to move it, or move your position relative to it so you observe different phases.

Quote
This doesn't demonstrate that the Moon is pointing upwards to a perspective effect. We are using a perspective effect to get the ball to point upwards, when it could also be that the Moon is pointing upwards and we are just matching it.

Right. So two experiments have been outlined and they demonstrate different things.
IF the sun is illuminating the moon AND the sun is distant so the light rays from it are in effect parallel AND light travels in straight lines
THEN if you hold a ball up so it lines up with the moon you should observe the same phase on the ball as you do the moon.
Because both the moon and the ball are being illuminated by the same light source, the rays are going straight and parallel, they're hitting the moon and the ball at the same angle and you're looking at both from the same perspective.
That's what my original diagram was trying to explain. Hopefully the new one with the extra balls shows more clearly why perspective is important.

Quote
The experiment is unable to distinguish whether the Moon is actually pointing upwards or not.

Correct. But that isn't what the experiment is intended to do. It's intended to add credence to the idea that the sun is distant and is illuminating the moon and the ball with parallel rays. I'll leave you to consider whether EA would make the same prediction.

There is another experiment we can do to determine whether the moon (more accurately the line perpendicular to the terminator on the moon) is pointing upwards. When you see the illusion the line perpendicular to the terminator looks like it shoots off into the sky. But as I've shown with the optical illusion above, we aren't very good at judging this sort of thing. I previously showed you this image:

(https://i.ibb.co/TWK9Ynw/Poggendorff1.jpg)

It looks like the black line and the blue line join up when in fact it's the red line which is a continuation of the black line:
Humans pretty much suck at judging things in certain situations.

The point of the string experiment is that the string forms a straight line.
If the sun is illuminating the moon and light travels in straight lines then the line perpendicular to the terminator should intersect the sun. The string experiment shows that, contrary to what it appears to the naked eye, the string does indeed intersect the sun. Just like you can draw a line on the above picture to show that it is the black and red lines which form a straight line, not the blue:

(https://i.ibb.co/SwHSTBB/Poggendorff2.jpg)

And yes, the string experiment can't distinguish between whether the light is going in a straight line or whether it's arcing around a dome like in your water bottle diagram. But that isn't how light behaves either in the RE model where light travels in straight lines or in the FE one where light bends upwards. In your diagram the sun's light would have to be bending up and over a hemisphere which is the opposite of what EA claims.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Longtitube on February 23, 2021, 09:57:46 AM
On the "Ball Experiment" -
.........
Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Marvellous, you’ve actually done something! Or tried to give that appearance: you didn’t really try to get the ball to line up with the Moon, did you? Probably because that’s what clowns do, in your own words.

Why all the emphasis on pointing the camera up to photograph the ball being a problem? Haven’t you noticed the Moon is also up in the sky and you need to point the camera up to photograph it too?

This is enormously entertaining, reading your efforts to discount what your own work nearly shows, but is just sufficiently clumsy to avoid. Next thing you’ll be filming ships sailing for Hawaii and disappearing slowly over the horizon.  ;D
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 23, 2021, 06:52:07 PM
On the "Ball Experiment" -

So the argument is admitting that the ball experiment is a perspective effect, but the argument is now pointing out that when you align the ball to the Moon, the phase points in a similar direction. This is an argument that the Moon is undergoing a perspective effect.

If the Moon was aligning itself along on a surface of a sphere, it would also match the perspective effect. The perspective effect is unable to distinguish whether something is curving/aligning on a sphere around you, or if it is pointing upwards to perspective, because when you look around an object with this perspective effect the shifts in the perspective are making spherical shifts.

I created a semi-transparent wire-frame sphere with a purple cone inside of it:

(https://i.imgur.com/hNlj86O.png)

Front View - Take note of the two rings that looks like an X:

(https://i.imgur.com/NPQsEOF.png)

Top View - Again, take note of the two rings that looks like an X:

(https://i.imgur.com/Y43yEW5.png)

Now when I aligned two of the rings which were angled like X's from the front and top views above the cone pointed upwards, matching the angle of the ring in the foreground and background.

(https://i.imgur.com/GMa81Gp.png)

View is from below the work plane. The purple cone basically matched the sphere around it.

There is no way to distinguish whether something is angled on the celestial sphere or not with this effect alone. Since this effect is orienting bodies in a spherical manner it will not distinguish whether something is truly angled as if on a sphere or not. Perspective causes similar shifts in a spherical manner simply because when you perform this effect you are looking at the object from a spherical direction around it. When viewing from spherical directions around an object it follows that it will shift in a spherical manner.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 24, 2021, 01:13:52 PM
So the argument is admitting that the ball experiment is a perspective effect, but the argument is now pointing out that when you align the ball to the Moon, the phase points in a similar direction. This is an argument that the Moon is undergoing a perspective effect.
Right. This isn't an admission, so much as an explanation. The phase you see on the moon depends on your perspective.
Of course it does. You have proved that with your pictures of the football. The phase you see on the ball depends on your perspective too. That's what my diagram shows and your pictures affirm.
In real life the ball and the moon are half lit and half dark at all times. But we don't always see the moon that way, we see a range of phases because of our changing perspective.
And the reason that you, living thousands of miles away from me, see the same phase of the moon as I do is because the moon is 250,000 miles away. In the context of that distance a few thousand miles doesn't change our perspective enough that there's any difference in what we see. Obviously with the ball you can move around it easily to see different "phases"

Quote
If the Moon was aligning itself along on a surface of a sphere, it would also match the perspective effect.

OK. So you're saying the light could be taking the path up and over the sphere you drew above

(https://i.imgur.com/Ecdy1mx.png)

If you're standing at the bottom of the red triangle and performing the string experiment, the blue dotted line represents the string.
So you're saying that you can't tell whether the light is really going in a straight line parallel to the string or whether it's going up and over the "dome" in the curved line you've drawn.

I basically agree, but that's just not how light behaves.
It's not how it behaves in RE where it goes in straight lines, or in FE where it bends upwards.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: scomato on February 24, 2021, 07:15:51 PM
On the "Ball Experiment" -

Bay Area California, Feb 21st, 2021, pictures taken around 5:27 PM PST with a Google Pixel 3 XL Phone.

Image 2:

Viewpoint from behind the ball, looking at Sun:

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/dahZJsy.jpg

Image 5:

Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Full Size:  https://i.imgur.com/rSV2mAx.jpg



Tom, I think it's fantastic that you did the experiment yourself.

In your photo #2 it perfectly demonstrates how the moon would be illuminated if you were to view it from the perspective of the far side of the moon facing the sun.

The below is a photo of the same experiment on a much grander scale, this shows how when viewed at the same angle, the Moon and the Earth are illuminated the same.

(https://i.imgur.com/8eAh1jb.png)

In your photo #5 it also perfectly demonstrates how, when a ball and the moon are viewed at the same angle, you see the same phase on the ball and on the moon. You have proved that both the Moon and the Earth, and the Ball, are all illuminated by parallel light rays, which is impossible in a geocentric model.

But your argument that by changing the perspective of the observer, so does change the shading of the ball. Of course it does, you are viewing it from a different angle. If you were to fly into space, and viewed the moon from an angle directly opposite the sun (such as in Photo #3), you would see a fully illuminated moon.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2021, 07:59:41 PM
The below is a photo of the same experiment on a much grander scale, this shows how when viewed at the same angle, the Moon and the Earth are illuminated the same.

(https://i.imgur.com/8eAh1jb.png)

It would be pretty weird if we were looking at that scene and the Sun was behind us.

And if we were looking at that scene with the Sun behind us, you guys would then say that should just take a string and align it horizontally to the Sun behind us to prove that the illuminated portions of the Moon and Earth are pointed at the Sun.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on February 24, 2021, 08:02:25 PM
And if we were looking at that scene with the Sun behind us, you guys would then say that should just take a string and align it horizontally to the Sun behind us to prove that the illuminated portions of the Moon and Earth are pointed at the Sun.
I wouldn’t say that because spheres don’t point.

I’ve explained what the string experiment demonstrates. And yes, the light could be going up and around some imaginary dome in such a way that it still lines up with the string. But that isn’t how light behaves in either RE (light goes in straight lines) or FE (EA bends light upwards).
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on March 03, 2021, 02:02:21 PM
I got a nice clear night recently so I took another, much longer exposure. This one was taken with a bigger zoom than my first attempt, to give examples of two lenses and give a nice full-field without any obstructions.

This was over a period of 9 hours so the star trails have enough length to clearly show that they are indeed circles and not ovals or any other shape.  The bright one near the center is Polaris of course.

One interesting thing to point out is with the stars expanded into lines, you can very clearly see the color of each star.  I was tempted to increase the saturation to bring out the colors more, but I didn't want to do any post processing to the image, so this is what I got out of the camera. Even so, the colors are there. Red dwarfs, blue giants, yellow and white suns like our own.

(https://i.imgur.com/vzkQ4sN.jpg)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Iceman on March 03, 2021, 02:57:07 PM
Awesome stuff!

How many individual shots goes into this? I'm assuming for a 9 hour trail you just had an auto shutter set up? Love the natural colors. I dont see them as much since moving to a place with more light pollution.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on March 03, 2021, 05:36:31 PM
I got a nice clear night recently so I took another, much longer exposure. This one was taken with a bigger zoom than my first attempt, to give examples of two lenses and give a nice full-field without any obstructions.

This was over a period of 9 hours so the star trails have enough length to clearly show that they are indeed circles and not ovals or any other shape.  The bright one near the center is Polaris of course.

One interesting thing to point out is with the stars expanded into lines, you can very clearly see the color of each star.  I was tempted to increase the saturation to bring out the colors more, but I didn't want to do any post processing to the image, so this is what I got out of the camera. Even so, the colors are there. Red dwarfs, blue giants, yellow and white suns like our own.

(https://i.imgur.com/vzkQ4sN.jpg)

Jesus, that was in-camera? Beautiful. Which lens did you use this time?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tumeni on March 03, 2021, 05:39:27 PM
I can move the camera around the closer object and create greater shifts in orientation than a background object.

... which is why, when observing the closer ball and the farther moon, you observe them close to each other in your field of view, so that you see them both from the same "perspective".

You cannot change your angle of view to the Moon to any significant degree.
You can change your angle of view to the nearer ball. Changing that to any significant degree invalidates the observation.

The further you move away from the centre line connecting the two spheres, the less the phases will resemble each other; which is the whole point. When you're aligned with them, they match.

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

That's what makes your reasoning fallacious. In reality, you cannot move your eye around the farther object to any significant degree, so when making the graphic model from the viewer's perspective, you MUST leave the camera at the angle relative to the farther object, and that angle MUST match that angle to the nearer one. 

As AATW said;

(https://i.ibb.co/KzXFm62/Moon-Ping-Pong.png)

If you don't line them up then yes, you'll see different phases. That's the exact point.

You have to look along line A, the red line, to achieve the same "perspective" on nearer sphere and Moon. You cannot look directly along it because you cannot see through the nearer sphere, so you have to move only as much off-axis as allows you to see the Moon beyond the nearer sphere.

If you look along any line which is significantly different to line A, you defeat the whole purpose of the exercise, which is to look at both nearer sphere and Moon from the "same perspective".

It's not using a "perspective effect" to force them to match, it's ensuring that you, the observer, are seeing them both from the SAME perspective. 
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: JSS on March 03, 2021, 06:40:06 PM
Awesome stuff!

How many individual shots goes into this? I'm assuming for a 9 hour trail you just had an auto shutter set up? Love the natural colors. I dont see them as much since moving to a place with more light pollution.

About 1,000 shots at a 30 second exposure each.  Luckily I'm in a spot without much light pollution, kind of a little dark pocket surrounded by awful lighting.

Jesus, that was in-camera? Beautiful. Which lens did you use this time?

The camera actually has a mode specifically for star trails and can have the shutter open as long as you want, all night even.  Just push a button, come back and your picture is done.  But that causes problems as you can't easily deal with planes and other light sources so I like to do it manually.

I set it up to snap photos continuously and merged all the frames on the PC, minus ones with planes in them.

The lens is an old 55mm f2.8 macro.  No bells and whistles like the newer electronic ones but great quality.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tumeni on March 04, 2021, 02:40:05 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8eAh1jb.png)

It would be pretty weird if we were looking at that scene and the Sun was behind us.

It would be impossible to have the sun behind the camera in that photo. Renders your following paragraph moot.

And if we were looking at that scene with the Sun behind us, you guys would then say that should just take a string and align it horizontally to the Sun behind us to prove that the illuminated portions of the Moon and Earth are pointed at the Sun.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tumeni on March 11, 2021, 09:55:47 AM
For info, Tom's photos and commentary from #90 above have been reposted and locked from comment in FE Projects;

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17844.0

Have you come to a conclusion, Tom? Do you see how the whole point of the exercise is not to move the camera around with respect to the nearer globe, but to align it with the line connecting the nearer and farther globes?

EDIT afterthought

The OP began with;

I want to know what is the simplest experiment that
one can do ... strongly distinguishes whether reality is a Flat Earth or Globe Earth?

... and Tom pitched in a couple of posts later with

The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at ...

Although RE claims to have answers for this, those answers really don't work.

What conclusions, Tom, from the six pages of discussion about this? Does this distinguish whether reality is a Flat Earth or Globe Earth?

Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 15, 2021, 05:42:26 PM
For info, Tom's photos and commentary from #90 above have been reposted and locked from comment in FE Projects;

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17844.0

Have you come to a conclusion, Tom? Do you see how the whole point of the exercise is not to move the camera around with respect to the nearer globe, but to align it with the line connecting the nearer and farther globes?

You are arguing that if you align the ball with the Moon that it will point in the same direction. But this perspective effect also points in the same direction as direction at the directions on the outside surface of a sphere.

Below we have an orange cone which points horizontally and purple cones which follow the directions of the circle (representing part of a celestial sphere) around the orange cone, which are angled at +45 or -45 degrees in relation to the vertical.

(https://i.imgur.com/le6uJId.png)

The following are from Views 1 (Red Pointer) and 2 (Yellow Pointer):

(https://i.imgur.com/hyeJMof.png) (https://i.imgur.com/S1KoZV9.png)

Next we rotate the entire mechanism on its horizontal axis, 45 degrees to the right in relation to vertical:

(https://i.imgur.com/flQtrGN.png)

From the views of the Red and Yellow pointers we again see that the middle cone points in the same direction as the cones on the outside of the circle:

(https://i.imgur.com/Knim5fR.png) (https://i.imgur.com/wP0Ru9B.png)

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stack on March 15, 2021, 06:04:47 PM
The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.

What do cones have to do with spheres?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 15, 2021, 06:22:31 PM
The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.

What do cones have to do with spheres?

It shows where the object is pointing and how it changes orientation to perspective.

(https://i.ibb.co/TgDYQhw/cone-moon-opti.gif)
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on March 15, 2021, 06:34:02 PM
The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not.
Yes. But that isn’t how light behaves.
It’s not how light behaves in RE (light travels in straight lines) or in FE (EA makes light bends upwards.

If you’re looking from the right and the right hand I is the string then sure, the light could be going in a straight I parallel. It could really going in a C shape away from you, or even a crazy S shape:

S C I    I  <— Tom

These are all possible and would align with the string, but only one of them matches how we understand light to behave.

Quote
Matching directions alone is meaningless.

It’s not meaningless. It demonstrates that there is a straight line perpendicular to the moon’s terminator which points at the sun, contrary to how it appears. It “breaks” the optical illusion where there is an apparent mismatch.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tumeni on March 15, 2021, 09:55:45 PM
You are arguing that if you align the ball with the Moon that it will point in the same direction.


I don't need to argue it. You can see it for yourself, IF you align yourself at the same angle to the nearer globe and to the Moon. If you deliberately move around or align yourself at an angle to the nearer globe which is not the same as that to the Moon, you're defeating the whole point.

But this perspective effect also points in the same direction as direction at the directions on the outside surface of a sphere.

Sorry, but this is just ungrammatical gibberish. You need to rephrase what you're trying to say.

Your graphic moves the camera/observer to two points on opposite sides of your sphere. You cannot do this in real life, so what relevance does your example have?

Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 16, 2021, 01:28:23 AM
Quote from: Tumeni
I don't need to argue it. You can see it for yourself, IF you align yourself at the same angle to the nearer globe and to the Moon. If you deliberately move around or align yourself at an angle to the nearer globe which is not the same as that to the Moon, you're defeating the whole point.

The above graphics showed your argument to be meaningless. The experiment does not distinguish between something tilted upwards upon the surface of a sphere or something that is being tilted upwards by perspective.

Quote from: Tumeni
Your graphic moves the camera/observer to two points on opposite sides of your sphere. You cannot do this in real life, so what relevance does your example have?

Actually you can hold an object up to the Moon and get to the other side of the object from the Moon. That's exactly what you asked us to do when you told us to hold the ball up to the Moon.

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not.
Yes. But that isn’t how light behaves.
It’s not how light behaves in RE (light travels in straight lines) or in FE (EA makes light bends upwards.

If you’re looking from the right and the right hand I is the string then sure, the light could be going in a straight I parallel. It could really going in a C shape away from you, or even a crazy S shape:

S C I    I  <— Tom

These are all possible and would align with the string, but only one of them matches how we understand light to behave.

Quote
Matching directions alone is meaningless.

It’s not meaningless. It demonstrates that there is a straight line perpendicular to the moon’s terminator which points at the sun, contrary to how it appears. It “breaks” the optical illusion where there is an apparent mismatch.

The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism. The method you provide with the ball is unable to distinguish between the two.

Since you posted "Yes", you acknowledge that this is a faulty experiment which proves nothing.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Longtitube on March 16, 2021, 07:45:40 AM
Last time I looked the Moon was still a sphere, not a cone. The foreshortening of perspective makes it possible for a uniformly lit cone pointing to the right and slightly towards you look much the same as one pointing to the right and slightly away from you, but a sphere is symmetrical and will always look the same however it is turned. Look at a sphere from above, below or from anywhere else and it still looks the same.

A light directed at a sphere will cast a shadow on the sphere which can be used to tell where the light is, which is the whole point of this debate, and it doesn’t matter how the sphere is turned because a sphere itself cannot point. Only the shadow on the sphere indicates where the light is.

Just how does this help in determining whether the earth is round or flat? Are we only arguing this in circles for the sake of argument?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tumeni on March 16, 2021, 09:46:53 AM
The above graphics showed your argument to be meaningless. The experiment does not distinguish between something tilted upwards upon the surface of a sphere or something that is being tilted upwards by perspective.

It does not need to. The experiment only has one valid perspective. Along the axis of the imaginary line connecting the centre of the nearer globe and the centre of the moon.

You're trying to generate/create a different tilt by varying the perspective of the observer or camera, which goes against the point of the exercise, as I explained above.

Actually you can hold an object up to the Moon and get to the other side of the object from the Moon. That's exactly what you asked us to do when you told us to hold the ball up to the Moon.

More ungrammatical stuff, but - no, you can't, and no I didn't.

You cannot hold an object up in front of you, with the moon beyond it, also 'in front' of you, and simultaneously view that object from a point between the object and the Moon, nor can you go to the Moon, then "get to the other side (of the object) from the Moon. Not while still holding the object, you can't.

I told you to hold the nearer globe between you and the Moon, as close to the axis mentioned as you can, such that you can see both nearer globe and Moon. I didn't say anything about "getting to the other side".
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tumeni on March 16, 2021, 10:11:35 AM
The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism.

The grammar of this is unclear; it can read in two ways;

"The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to ( ... something ), can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism."  (My parenthesis added)

OR

"The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism."


Pick one or rephrase, Tom?

Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on March 16, 2021, 10:36:48 AM
The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism. The method you provide with the ball is unable to distinguish between the two.

I don't know what you mean by "another mechanism". The phase we see on the moon is because of our perspective. You have shown that with your experiments with the ball. As you take the photo from different angles you see different "phases" on the ball. In real life the ball is always half lit and half unlit, but the "phase" you see depends on your perspective. With a ball close to you it's easy to change your perspective. Because the moon is so far away that it doesn't matter where you are on earth, your perspective is effectively the same. That's why we both see the same phase at night despite being thousands of miles apart. You'll only see the same phase on the moon and the ball if you line them up correctly so you are looking at both from the same perspective. I have drawn diagrams which explain why. That is the point of that ball experiment.

Quote
Since you posted "Yes", you acknowledge that this is a faulty experiment which proves nothing.
Please stop the straw man trolling.
It's not a faulty experiment, the issue here seems to be that you don't understand what experiments are for.
They are generally designed to test a hypothesis. They don't "prove" the hypothesis, they can only disprove it.  For example.

Let's say I have a hypothesis that things fall to earth when I drop them.
I design and run an experiment where I drop things and sure enough they all fall. Hurrah, hypothesis proven!
Well, no. Because then I publish my results and someone else "drops" a helium balloon and it floats away. My hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect.
My original hypothesis was too simplistic. A more accurate model which explains observations is that gravity exerts a force on objects, but other forces may be acting too. In the case of the balloon a buoyancy force is acting which is stronger than the gravitational one so instead of falling the object rises.

That's how science works. Nothing is ever proven in the strictest sense, but the more experiments which are run the more confidence is built in the underlying hypotheses which they are designed to test.

In this case I hypothesise that:

1) The sun is illuminating the moon
2) Light goes in straight lines.

IF those two things are true THEN a line perpendicular to the terminator I observe on the moon should point at the sun. When I see the moon tilt illusion it appears that this is not the case.
The string experiment demonstrates that this apparent misalignment is simply an optical illusion. It proves there is no misalignment, it doesn't prove the hypotheses but it isn't designed to.

(https://i.ibb.co/FmL0kbf/String-Experiment1.jpg)

Now. What you're saying is the light could be travelling like this and it would still line up with the string:

(https://i.ibb.co/myPHNkC/String-Experiment2.jpg)

You are correct. But what evidence do you have that light behaves this way? The light could be doing this too:

(https://i.ibb.co/bmBnzRm/String-Experiment3.jpg)

That would also line up with the string. But, again, I have no evidence that light behaves that way. I do have evidence that light goes in straight lines. LIGO has 4km long straight tunnels and bounces a laser between mirrors at each end 300 times making an effective distance of 1200km.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo
You would have thought that if light was being bent they'd have noticed.

So while the string experiment doesn't prove the light is going in straight lines and it could be going along the path you suppose, that just isn't how light behaves.
In RE light travels in straight lines,
In FE light is bent upwards by EA.

The path you claim is possible for the light to be travelling in doesn't match either RE or FE, it is a complete contradiction to EA.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tumeni on March 16, 2021, 05:59:13 PM
... what is the simplest experiment that one can do in their neighborhood or community without expensive  equipment or a lot of commitment.

Can I ask your approximate neighbourhood?

Any large river valleys spanned by large bridges near you?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Mothra on March 16, 2021, 11:26:21 PM
I can stay silent on this no longer.

Like the moon tilt illusion, the pointing spheres illusion is just that, an illusion.  It only works when one views it in a single plane.  Like the string, once Little Mothra joins the picture the illusion is broken.

(https://i.imgur.com/509jnt6.png)

The only object seen in the correct orientation, pointing in a straight line at the source, by red, white, and bug at the same time is the orange cone.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on March 22, 2021, 02:51:10 PM
The moon tilt exchange has been interesting. I believe the RE explanation for what we see has been exhausted.  What no one has yet to do is fully examine the FE explanation for moon tilt.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
So, let’s examine how EA and moon tilt would actually work on FE.  We can then compare Tom’s ball experiment to what we expect.
Here’s a slight modification of the WIKI page with the moon shown as it would be at the 3rd quarter. I only did this to line up the sun direction arrow accurately with the moon’s tilt.
(https://i.imgur.com/WbgThRp.png)
Below the WIKI side view, I have drawn (at the suggestion of a previous poster) what we would see looking down at the sun and moon from above them.   In reality, two simple things determine moon tilt under FE and EA.  First, whichever side of the moon’s terminator line a viewer is on, that side of the moon will appear facing up.  This is what the WIKI side view successfully depicts.  Second, whichever side of an observer the sun’s direct path line falls on as a viewer looks at the moon will be the direction which the upper side of the moon will face. So, in the illustration, observer A would see the dark side up facing right.  Observer B would see the lit side up facing left. Observer C would see the lit side up facing right.  Observer D would see the dark side up facing left.
The other things to mention are first, anytime a viewer is on the direct path line of the sun and moon the moon terminator will be horizontal.  Second, anytime a viewer is on the terminator line the terminator will be vertical.  These facts are independent of the distance to the moon and sun of the viewer.  Distance only changes altitude angle, not moon tilt, in the FE-EA model.
The WIKI does a good job of explaining how moon tilt would change depending on a viewer’s orientation to the moon.  However, there is an equally important element to moon tilt which it doesn’t specifically address.  That is the sun’s relation to the moon.  I’ve illustrated the effect below.
(https://i.imgur.com/dH2jVfw.png)
You can see that an observer with the same orientation to the moon will see a different moon tilt depending on the position of the sun.  This becomes an important factor to the EA moon tilt discussion as the sun and moon rotate around the observer in the FE model.
With this in mind, let’s examine Tom’s ball experiment.  Tom presents his own picture of the moon taken from the bay area, Feb. 21, 2021 around 5:27 PM. The lit side of the moon is clearly facing up and to Tom's right.

https://i.imgur.com/eSmtd9N.jpg

Here is a diagram of the locations of the sun and moon as they orbit the north pole in relation to the bay area at that time. 
(https://i.imgur.com/A1hL8tF.png)
The N-S line is centered near Santa Clara There are actually two horizontal lines showing the limits of Concord and Santa Cruz to the north and south.  If pressed, I’ll detail the drawing but I won’t take the space up here.  The intersection of the sunlight path to the moon occurs at about 45 deg. N.  That’s roughly Salem, Oregon. What this clearly shows is that that Tom would be in quadrant B above (lit side facing Tom with sun line passing over left shoulder.) Based on what I detailed in the quadrants above the lit side of the moon should be facing up and left of Tom at the time the photo was taken if the FE-EA model is correct.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Tumeni on March 22, 2021, 05:02:03 PM
I want to know what is the simplest experiment that one can do in their neighborhood or community without expensive  equipment or a lot of commitment. ...

Using the principles of Bedford Canal experiment, outlined in the Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bedford_Canal_Experiments), find yourself a location where you can look out from land over a body of water with objects of known height on or beyond the water.

Confirm your own observation height with reliable terrain maps, GPS elevation apps on phone, established benchmarks on hills, and such, and match your observation height to a selected object; a bridge tower, lighthouse, island, lighthouse on an island, etc.

Determine if all objects of the same height as you present themselves at the same height, are in the same sightline, or if they fall below this as per Rowbotham's second illustration.

Illus 1

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/1a/Experiment-2a.jpg)

Illus 2

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/62/Experiment-2b.jpg)

I have examples.

If you can find a situation where you look out from height A at a 'flag' of height A, and that 'flag' appears to be higher in your sightline than the higher 'flag' which is beyond it ... then you would appear to be mirroring Rowbotham's round earth illustration.

(https://i.imgur.com/uybWvRw.jpg)   
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: scomato on March 22, 2021, 05:02:09 PM
@Tom

NASA recently took a photo from the 'other angle' that you hypothesized in your sun-ball photo demonstration. This photo was taken by the Deep Space Climate Observatory, that sits at Earth's L1 point. As you can very clearly see, as the Moon and the Earth are both illuminated by the same Sun, that they are illuminated in the same phase as one another. This is consistent with the fact that the Earth is a planet. This is exactly the same as the Ping Pong experiment.

(https://i.imgur.com/3DN1HWY.jpg)

Is there any rational explanation for the above photo that does not strawman into NASA being a fraudulent organization?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: daniil_sedov on April 20, 2021, 08:20:39 AM
Cavendish experiment
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 20, 2021, 12:48:46 PM
Fill a water bottle and punch holes along the sides so that water pours from them.  Drop the bottle at some height.

According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.  But that's not what happens. 

The water stops pouring from the holes while the bottle is in free fall.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Mothra on April 20, 2021, 10:33:28 PM
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

The Shobijin have summoned me here.  Please explain.  How does UA make this so?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 20, 2021, 11:02:17 PM
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

The Shobijin have summoned me here.  Please explain.  How does UA make this so?

The way UA works, as I understand it is that if I jump off a chair I wouldn't fall because there is no gravity to pull me down.  I'd just hang there and the floor would rise up to meet me.  Why would a dropped water bottle be any different?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stevecanuck on April 21, 2021, 12:59:48 AM
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

The Shobijin have summoned me here.  Please explain.  How does UA make this so?

The way UA works, as I understand it is that if I jump off a chair I wouldn't fall because there is no gravity to pull me down.  I'd just hang there and the floor would rise up to meet me.  Why would a dropped water bottle be any different?

In my young and foolish days I was a skydiver. When I stepped out of an airplane at, say 5000 feet above ground level, why is air not immediately rushing by me?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on April 21, 2021, 08:21:28 AM
Aerodynamic lift is maintaining the aircraft at a constant altitude, so it (and its occupants) are supported by the atmosphere (atmosplane - yuk!), which is supported by the Earth.  Thus, the aircraft and its occupants, by implication, have identical acceleration and instantaneous velocity as the Earth, so are accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s/s due to UA (also yuk!).

When you leave the aircraft you have the same instantaneous velocity as Earth and atmosphere, hence feel no windrush.  However, as you are now not being accelerated, the earth continues to accelerate towards you at 9.81m/s/s.  In a vacuum, you would remain at constant velocity until the Earth (because it is still accelerating) hits you. 

In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).   

At this point your body's acceleration is identical to Earth's but, because of the period when you had reduced acceleration, your velocity is less than Earth's so it still hits you.   
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: stevecanuck on April 21, 2021, 02:43:00 PM
Aerodynamic lift is maintaining the aircraft at a constant altitude, so it (and its occupants) are supported by the atmosphere (atmosplane - yuk!), which is supported by the Earth.  Thus, the aircraft and its occupants, by implication, have identical acceleration and instantaneous velocity as the Earth, so are accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s/s due to UA (also yuk!).

When you leave the aircraft you have the same instantaneous velocity as Earth and atmosphere, hence feel no windrush.  However, as you are now not being accelerated, the earth continues to accelerate towards you at 9.81m/s/s.  In a vacuum, you would remain at constant velocity until the Earth (because it is still accelerating) hits you. 

In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).   

At this point your body's acceleration is identical to Earth's but, because of the period when you had reduced acceleration, your velocity is less than Earth's so it still hits you.

Right. I figured that out well after I posted. Thanks.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 21, 2021, 04:43:23 PM
Quote
In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).
   

This confuses me.  It seems like you'd need a completely different equation to determine TV under the FE model.  The wiki define FE TV as A: When the acceleration of the falling object is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the object has reached terminal velocity relative to the Earth.

The equation for TV used by RE is used to determine when the falling object is no longer accelerating.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Mothra on April 21, 2021, 05:15:31 PM
The way UA works, as I understand it is that if I jump off a chair I wouldn't fall because there is no gravity to pull me down.  I'd just hang there and the floor would rise up to meet me.  Why would a dropped water bottle be any different?

No.  This.

According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 21, 2021, 05:22:42 PM
Quote
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

Why wouldn't it keep pouring out?  If the water is pouring out when you are holding onto to bottle, why would it stop when you let go, according to UA?  According to UA, the same forces are working on the water bottle when you are hold it as when you let it go.

Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on April 21, 2021, 06:23:36 PM
Quote
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

Why wouldn't it keep pouring out?  If the water is pouring out when you are holding onto to bottle, why would it stop when you let go, according to UA?  According to UA, the same forces are working on the water bottle when you are hold it as when you let it go.
Not true.

When you are holding the bottle you are on the ground. The accelerating earth exerts a force on your feet which makes you accelerate upwards. You in turn impart that force on the bottle so it accelerates upwards too. When you let go of the bottle you are no longer exerting that force on it, the earth accelerates up towards it and hits it.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 21, 2021, 08:29:58 PM
Quote
Not true.

Well, what you say is true, but my point is that there is nothing different about holding the bottle and letting it go that would account for the water to stop pouring out when you let go.

When you are holding the bottle and it is accelerating with you, there is a continuous stream flowing from the holes.  When you let go of the bottle and it is no longer accelerating with you, the water should continue to flow from the holes and remain stationary until the earth catches up. There is no force on the bottle that would keep the water from escaping, at least at the points where the holes are. Water conforms to the shape of it’s container. Do you think the water bottles astronauts use on the ISS have holes in them?

Before you claim that it would be a violation of the EP, I remind you that the EP only applies to objects that are under constant acceleration/at rest in a gravitational field.  A body at rest in a gravitational field cannot be distinguished from an object under constant acceleration.

A freely falling water bottle is neither. It is not under the constant acceleration that would be created by a FE under UA, nor is it at rest in a gravitational field that would created by a RE.

EDIT:  Actually, now that I think about it, what you said isn't entirely true.  When you're holding the bottle, it would be accelerating with you, but the "mechanical force" that supposedly keeps us pinned to the ground wouldn't be acting on the water bottle because that is a contact force.  The bottom of the bottle isn't in contact with the ground.  Even when you are holding the bottle, the water should just leak from the holes and hang.  There's no force to make the water fall.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on April 22, 2021, 09:41:32 AM
There is no force on the bottle that would keep the water from escaping, at least at the points where the holes are.
Isn't it air pressure? Isn't that the force that stops the water escaping when it's in freefall under gravity?

Quote
Even when you are holding the bottle, the water should just leak from the holes and hang.  There's no force to make the water fall.
Right. There's no force. So it remains stationary and the earth accelerates and hits it. There is a force acting on the bottle which stops that happening, which is you holding it.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 22, 2021, 12:54:58 PM
Quote
Isn't it air pressure? Isn't that the force that stops the water escaping when it's in freefall under gravity?

No, the water doesn't escape from the holes when it is in freefall because there is no gravity in freefall. After thinking about it, this is what I realized when I went back and made my later edit. Actually, I went and found the video I saw sometime ago and refreshed my memory. I didn't think my original response all the way through. The link to the demonstration is below. Good part starts around 3:10

In a UA environment, holding the bottle, the earth is accelerating and the bottle is accelerating with you. There is a "pinning force"...which seems to be just a "reverse normal force"...keeping you on the ground.  But that normal force isn't working on the bottle because it isn't on the ground. It isn't responsible for the water flowing down. When you let go, there is no change in the forces on the bottle that would account for the water to stop flowing down.

In an RE environment, gravity is pulling the water down from the holes, when you are holding it, but when you let go, the water stops flowing because there is no gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A

Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 22, 2021, 01:43:00 PM
No, the water doesn't escape from the holes when it is in freefall because there is no gravity in freefall.

No, there is still gravity in freefall.  If there wasn't, freefall would stop.

The water doesn't escape because as soon as you let go of the bottle, the bottle is allowed to fall at the same acceleration as the water.

Under UA this would be no different as AATW explained.  When you are holding the bottle, both you and the bottle are being pushed upward but the water is not until the earth reaches it as it hits the ground.  Therefore the water 'falls'.  Once the bottle is released, then both the bottle and water are stationary while the earth is traveling to meet them.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 22, 2021, 04:11:45 PM
Quote
No, there is still gravity in freefall.  If there wasn't, freefall would stop.

No, according to GR, there is no “force” of gravity during freefall.  In Newtonian physics freefall is defined as motion under the force of gravity.  In GR, it is defined as motion under no force at all. When the water bottle falls, it is just following a geodesic without any forces stopping it.  There isn’t any force on it at all. That is the whole point of the demonstration. Check out what Brian Greene says about the 4:20 mark of the video.  Paraphrase...the water is flowing because of gravity, but if Einstein is right, the water won't feel gravity and stop flowing when it is dropped.

Quote
In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity, where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall#:~:text=In%20the%20context%20of%20general,no%20force%20acting%20on%20it.&text=An%20object%20moving%20upwards%20might,to%20be%20in%20free%20fall.

Quote
Under UA this would be no different as AATW explained.  When you are holding the bottle, both you and the bottle are being pushed upward but the water is not until the earth reaches it as it hits the ground.  Therefore the water 'falls'.  Once the bottle is released, then both the bottle and water are stationary while the earth is traveling to meet them

Under UA, it is true that the bottle (and the water in it) are all being accelerated while you are holding it.  But under UA, there is no force acting on the water that would account for it flowing down out of the holes while you are holding it.

Gravity doesn’t account for the water flowing down, because it doesn’t exist.  The UA “pinning” force can’t account for it because that force requires actual contact with the ground. The forces working on you as you hold the bottle are different than the forces working on the bottle.  The ground is pushing you up and there is a reaction force that pins you down to the surface of the ground.  That is not the case with the bottle.  There is no reaction force because it is not touching the ground. Nothing is "pushing" down on the bottle that would account for why the water flows.

The reason that this doesn’t violate the EP is because the reason accelerated motion without gravity is indistinguishable from being at rest in a gravitational field is because in both cases, the forces effecting an object are equivalent.  Accelerated motion pushing the floor up against your feet causes a reaction that causes your body to push against the floor and feels the same as “gravity” pulling your feet down and the floor pushing back up.  In both cases there is a reaction force that can be interpreted as a reaction to being accelerated up or to being pulled down.

Here the forces effecting the bottle as you hold it are not equivalent.  Holding it up in the air doesn't produce the equivalent effect of it being on the ground. There is no reaction force.



   
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 22, 2021, 04:28:34 PM

Under UA, it is true that the bottle (and the water in it) are all being accelerated while you are holding it.  But under UA, there is no force acting on the water that would account for it flowing down out of the holes while you are holding it.

In a bottle with no holes, water does not pour out because it has no path to even though it wants to.  It is contained within the bottle which is being forced upward due to the normal force being applied by a person's hand pulling up on it.  This is exactly why people don't fall out of planes.

Once holes are poked in the bottle, the water is no longer contained within the bottle.  The water stops accelerating with the bottle because it has a way to escape the confines.  It appears that it is falling out of the bottle when, in fact, it is sitting motionless in air while the bottle accelerates away from it and the earth accelerates toward it.  It's simple EP.  Cut a hole in the floor of a plane and watch what happens to folks as the try to walk over it.


The UA “pinning” force can’t account for it because that force requires actual contact with the ground. The forces working on you as you hold the bottle are different than the forces working on the bottle.  The ground is pushing you up and there is a reaction force that pins you down to the surface of the ground.  That is not the case with the bottle.  There is no reaction force because it is not touching the ground. Nothing is "pushing" the bottle that would account for why the water flows.


The "pinning" force on the bottle is the hand of the person holding it.  The bottle doesn't have to be touching the ground to be "pinned" to be accelrating along with it.  No different than when a person jumps up and grabs on to a bar. They don't fall.  Not because the ground is stopping them, but because the bar they are holding onto prevents it.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on April 22, 2021, 05:17:28 PM
Right.

What you're suggesting, fisherman, is that if you balance the bottle on the palm of your hand then the water would flow out of the holes because your hand provides the force which the ground would were the bottle on the ground. But if you hold it anywhere else then the water wouldn't because the bottom of the bottle doesn't have that force applied.
I'm pretty sure that's not right.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 22, 2021, 05:49:34 PM
Quote
What you're suggesting, fisherman, is that if you balance the bottle on the palm of your hand then the water would flow out of the holes because your hand provides the force which the ground would were the bottle on the ground. But if you hold it anywhere else then the water wouldn't because the bottom of the bottle doesn't have that force applied.
I'm pretty sure that's not right

In a UA environment if the bottom of the bottle is in contact with your hand, there is a reaction force. And in a UA environment, it would have to be the reaction force that causes the water to flow. At least that's the only force that I can think of that would cause it, but I'm open to suggestions.

In an RE environment no reaction force is necessary. The water flows because it's natural motion follows a geodisic and wherever there is hole, there is nothing to impede it.

In any event, if the water stops flowing while the bottle is in free fall it is not because of the EP.  The EP only applies to objects that are either in constant acceleration or at rest in a gravitational field..  An supported bottle that is hanging there waiting for the ground to catch up isn't in constant acceleration and a bottle that is freefall isn't at rest in a gravitational field.  The EP doesn't apply.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 22, 2021, 08:05:26 PM
wherever there is hole, there is nothing to impede it.

You've answered your own question.

The holes in the bottle do not impede the waters ability to remain in a constant location as the bottle is being forced to accelerate upward because the person holding it.  Basically, the bottle is being dragged through the water at that point.


In any event, if the water stops flowing while the bottle is in free fall it is not because of the EP.  The EP only applies to objects that are either in constant acceleration or at rest in a gravitational field..  An supported bottle that is hanging there waiting for the ground to catch up isn't in constant acceleration and a bottle that is freefall isn't at rest in a gravitational field.  The EP doesn't apply.

Perhaps relativity is more apt than EP.  The concept is the same.  There is no difference between an object accelerating down and the earth accelerating up to meet it. That's the simplest form of relativity. That is the discussion with regards to UA and the bottle.  Under UA a held bottle with holes will leak water until it is released as there is nothing to impede the water from staying still as the earth and bottle both rise around it.  When the bottle is released, now both the bottle and water are motionless as the earth rises to meet them therefore no water flows out. No different than a bottle being held under gravity.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 22, 2021, 08:59:12 PM
Quote
The holes in the bottle do not impede the waters ability to remain in a constant location as the bottle is being forced to accelerate upward because the person holding it.  Basically, the bottle is being dragged through the water at that point.

You are confused.  Holes don't impede anything's ability to remain in a constant location, they make it pretty likely that  something won't stay in a constant location.  That's why its not a good thing to have holes in your pocket.   The water isn't staying in a "constant location" while you are holding it. It is flowing from the holes in the bottle.  Some force is causing that. 

If the water stops flowing from the holes in the bottle when you let go, then that force is no longer acting on the water.

I'll say it again.  You can't argue that the water would stop flowing under both gravity and UA because of the EP.  A freely falling water bottle is neither in constant acceleration nor at rest in a gravitational field, therefore, the EP doesn't apply. It only applies when an object can be considered either under constant acceleration or at rest in a gravitational field.


Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 22, 2021, 09:50:30 PM
You are confused.  Holes don't impede anything's ability to remain in a constant location, they make it pretty likely that  something won't stay in a constant location.  That's why its not a good thing to have holes in your pocket.   The water isn't staying in a "constant location" while you are holding it. It is flowing from the holes in the bottle.

That is literally what I just said.


If the water stops flowing from the holes in the bottle when you let go, then that force is no longer acting on the water.

Nope.  It means that identical forces are acting on the bottle and the water.  In RE, gravity is still acting on both the bottle and the water equally while it is in freefall.  If it weren't, the bottle and water would cease to fall.  Gravity has caused both the water and the bottle to reach the same velocity.  Since there is no other force to expel the water from the bottle it doesn't come out.  Under UA, 'freefall' is simply the fact that the bottle and water are at rest awaiting the arrival of the earth from below.  Relativistically there is no difference between the two and they behave the same.

I'll say it again.  You can't argue that the water would stop flowing under both gravity and UA because of the EP. 

Fine, I'll stop saying it then.  Doesn't make a damn bit of difference as to how the water and bottle would work under UA.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 22, 2021, 11:16:40 PM
 
Quote
In RE, gravity is still acting on both the bottle and the water equally while it is in freefall.  If it weren't, the bottle and water would cease to fall.


I would ask what part of GR don't you understand, but apparently its all of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKH1ZjGutA
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 23, 2021, 01:52:57 AM
Quote
In RE, gravity is still acting on both the bottle and the water equally while it is in freefall.  If it weren't, the bottle and water would cease to fall.


I would ask what part of GR don't you understand, but apparently its all of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKH1ZjGutA

Thank you for that.  I will admit to being old school.  The major reason I stick around here is for little nuggets like that.  So let's look at the bottle.  I'm sure I'll butcher this.

So, when held, bottle (and water if there are no holes) doesn't travel a geodesic as the force of the person stops the bottle and the impermeability of the bottle stops the water the exact same way the earth stops then from falling.  If holes are present, then there is no force due to impermeability and the water is allowed to follow the geodesic it wants while the bottle is restricted from following said geodesic so the water pours out.  If the bottle is released, then both the bottle and water are allowed to follow the same geodesic to their happy little future space time location they are seeking.   This all happens regardless gravity as gravity isn't a real force it's just that the bottle and water desire to be at a different location in space time until the earth stops their path along the geodesic. Reads an awful lot like my simple old school explanation just different word salad but if I'm misunderstanding this I welcome the correction and education.

So let's take UA under GR.  UA says earth accelerating upward.  Bottle and water without holes aren't allowed to follow their geodesic because the force of the person holding the bottle is causing them to both accelerate upwards and the impermeability of the bottle is the force that prevents the water from following its geodesic.  With holes, the force of impermeability is removed allowing the water to follow its geodesic until the time that the upwardly accelerating earth applies the force to stop it.  When the bottle is released, both water and bottle are now allow to travel the same geodesic until the upwardly accelerating earth meets them.  Again, reads an awful lot like old school physics.  Either way, the bottle and water behave exactly the same in both cases.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on April 23, 2021, 10:10:43 AM
A freely falling water bottle is neither in constant acceleration nor at rest in a gravitational field, therefore, the EP doesn't apply.
It is under constant acceleration. If you ignore air resistance and terminal velocity, it's accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s2 towards the earth, no?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 23, 2021, 12:10:24 PM
Quote
So let's take UA under GR.  UA says earth accelerating upward.  Bottle and water without holes aren't allowed to follow their geodesic because the force of the person holding the bottle is causing them to both accelerate upwards and the impermeability of the bottle is the force that prevents the water from following its geodesic.  With holes, the force of impermeability is removed allowing the water to follow its geodesic until the time that the upwardly accelerating earth applies the force to stop it.  When the bottle is released, both water and bottle are now allow to travel the same geodesic until the upwardly accelerating earth meets them.  Again, reads an awful lot like old school physics.  Either way, the bottle and water behave exactly the same in both cases.

The concept of geodisics only apply in the context of curved spaces.  FE/UA (as far as I understand) rejects the idea that spacetime is curved.

But your response is interesting in that it is exactly how FE will cherry pick certain concepts from both Newtonian physics and GR and try to marry them into one "theory".  Some things, that's not a problem.  Others end up causing obvious contradictions in their own theory.

FErs love to point out that under GR gravity is not a force. Somehow that supports FE/UA. Then they use the EP to explain how UA works as a "force".  Do you see the contradiction?

If gravity and acceleration are equivalent and gravity is not a force, then neither is acceleration.  There can't be any "force" pushing the earth.  EP doesn't make UA possible, it makes it impossible. 

Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 23, 2021, 01:30:54 PM
Quote
It is under constant acceleration. If you ignore air resistance and terminal velocity, it's accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s2 towards the earth, no?

Quote
It is under constant acceleration. If you ignore air resistance and terminal velocity, it's accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s2 towards the earth, no?

Then you are conceding that the water bottle is in a gravitational field, and UA can't account for the water not  flowing.  Once you determine that the bottle is accelerating in a gravitational field, you eliminate UA as a cause.   

For the EP to apply, you need to be able to say that it could be true that the water is not flowing because of UA and it could also be true that water is not flowing because of gravity. If the bottle is at rest, you can say that.  But in order for the bottle to be at rest in a gravitational field, it has to be supported by something.

EDIT: Just in case the dots are connecting for some people...since the bottle isn't supported, it is accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and we can conclude that UA is not responsible for the water not flowing.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on April 23, 2021, 02:02:53 PM
For the EP to apply, you need to be able to say that it could be true that the water is not flowing because of UA and it could also be true that water is not flowing because of gravity. If the bottle is at rest, you can say that.  But in order for the bottle to be at rest in a gravitational field, it has to be supported by something.

EDIT: Just in case the dots are connecting for some people...since the bottle isn't supported, it is accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and we can conclude that UA is not responsible for the water not flowing.
But if UA was a thing then when you let the bottle go no forces are acting on the bottle, yes?
If no forces are acting then the bottle is either at rest or continues at a constant velocity.
If UA was accelerating the earth upwards and you are holding the bottle and thus making the bottle accelerate up with it then at the moment you let go the bottle would continue upwards at the velocity it was going at when you released it. BUT, the earth continues to accelerate so hits the bottle.

But the point is as soon as you let go of the bottle the force you were applying on it stops, no force is acting so what would make the water leak out of the bottle?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 23, 2021, 02:18:45 PM
The concept of geodisics only apply in the context of curved spaces.  FE/UA (as far as I understand) rejects the idea that spacetime is curved.

You've got to admit that on the surface curvy space time is as absurd a concept as bendy light.

FErs love to point out that under GR gravity is not a force. Somehow that supports FE/UA. Then they use the EP to explain how UA works as a "force".  Do you see the contradiction?

If gravity and acceleration are equivalent and gravity is not a force, then neither is acceleration.  There can't be any "force" pushing the earth.  EP doesn't make UA possible, it makes it impossible.

No contradiction.  Equivalence doesn't mean my force equals your force.  Equivalence means my force equals your spacetime curve.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 23, 2021, 03:28:41 PM
Quote
But the point is as soon as you let go of the bottle the force you were applying on it stops, no force is acting so what would make the water leak out of the bottle?

That’s the million $ question.  What force acts on the bottle while you were holding that does not act on it when you you let go?

The only thing that comes to my mind is water pressure.  The real reason the water stops flowing when there is no gravity is because without gravity, there is no water pressure.  So I suppose you could say that without acceleration there is no water pressure.  But that’s just another way of saying the EP applies and raises a whole bunch of other questions in the process.  Not necessarily saying there aren’t answers to those questions, but its just another example of how every answer raises another question and every solution causes another problem when one tries to understand UA.

So if we go with the water pressure answer, we have to ask what caused the water pressure in the bottle when you were holding it? On RE water pressure is created because of water’s natural motion to “go down” aka “seek it’s own level”...because of gravity.  Without gravity, with UA, is water’s natural motion up?  That would solve the problem of what causes the water pressure in the bottle why you are holding it...but raises new questions about how we observe the behavior of water in any other situation.

If water’s natural motion is up, it doesn’t “seek its own level” and there goes an argument for the flat earth.

See what I mean?  It’s just one big rabbit hole.  Fers want to waive the EP flag like a magic wand and pretend that it solves all the problems with UA, but that is far from the case.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on April 23, 2021, 03:41:42 PM
Quote
But the point is as soon as you let go of the bottle the force you were applying on it stops, no force is acting so what would make the water leak out of the bottle?

That’s the million $ question.  What force acts on the bottle while you were holding that does not act on it when you you let go?

UA accelerates the earth upwards. That exerts a force on you. You are holding the bottle so you exert a force on it.
Isn't it that force in UA that would create the water pressure? The bottle is accelerating up, so water in it which would naturally stay at rest is pushed to the bottom of the bottle by the bottom of the bottle accelerating upwards. That's what creates the water pressure which makes the water flow out the holes. Let go of the bottle and it stops accelerating upwards because that force is removed, it keeps moving upwards at a constant velocity, the earth accelerates upwards and hits is.

Don't get me wrong, I think UA is bollox. But I don't think this is a distinguishing experiment, I think you'd get the same results in both cases. The force is either generated by a gravitational field or by the earth accelerating upwards.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 23, 2021, 03:49:59 PM
Quote
You've got to admit that on the surface curvy space time is as absurd a concept as bendy light.


I disagree with that.  Curved spacetime is validated by Einstein's field equations (not to mention experimental evidence).  It works exactly as predicted by the field equations.  As far as I know, there are no equations that can be used to validate bendy light.

Quote
No contradiction.  Equivalence doesn't mean my force equals your force.  Equivalence means my force equals your spacetime curve.


What the equivalence between acceleration and gravity means is that they produce the same effect.  If the effect of acceleration is motion, then the effect of gravity is motion.  If the effect of acceleration is the warping of spacetime, then the effect of gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Your response just makes my point.  Use the Newtonian definition of force to explain why gravity is not a force in GR.

Fers claim that gravity is not a force in GR, but completely ignore the reasons why.  Accept the conclusion, but not the reasoning that leads to the conclusion.  Does that make sense to you?

Not only is that cherry picking, its wanting to eat your cherries and have them too.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 23, 2021, 04:00:00 PM
Quote
Isn't it that force in UA that would create the water pressure? The bottle is accelerating up, so water in it which would naturally stay at rest is pushed to the bottom of the bottle by the bottom of the bottle accelerating upwards

If the bottom of the bottle is accelerating up, it wouldn't push the water to the bottom of the bottle. It would push it up to the top.  Like I said, that would create water pressure and explain the results of the demonstration.

But it is also contrary to everything we observe about how water behaves in any other circumstance.  On earth we observe that water's, natural motion downward.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: AATW on April 23, 2021, 04:09:56 PM
If the bottom of the bottle is accelerating up, it wouldn't push the water to the bottom of the bottle. It would push it up to the top.
No it wouldn't! Why would it?
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: scomato on April 23, 2021, 04:18:58 PM
Gravity is not a force, and we've known that ever since we graduated from Newtonian physics.

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity, which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of masses moving along geodesic lines in a curved spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

There is no difference between floating in space, or falling from a building, both are inertial frames of reference taking a straight-line path on its geodesic through spacetime. This is a great video, I think everyone here should watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 23, 2021, 05:54:35 PM
I disagree with that.  Curved spacetime is validated by Einstein's field equations (not to mention experimental evidence).  It works exactly as predicted by the field equations.  As far as I know, there are no equations that can be used to validate bendy light.

Not disagreeing which is why I said, "on the surface."

What the equivalence between acceleration and gravity means is that they produce the same effect.  If the effect of acceleration is motion, then the effect of gravity is motion. 

Yes, but equivalence allows acceleration and gravity to cause motion in two different ways in the the two differing views.

If the effect of acceleration is the warping of spacetime, then the effect of gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Does FE state that the effect of acceleration is the warping of spacetime?  I don't believe it does but admittedly don't know.

Your response just makes my point.  Use the Newtonian definition of force to explain why gravity is not a force in GR.

Fers claim that gravity is not a force in GR, but completely ignore the reasons why.  Accept the conclusion, but not the reasoning that leads to the conclusion.  Does that make sense to you?

Not only is that cherry picking, its wanting to eat your cherries and have them too.

That is a separate discussion of I'm right, you're wrong. 

The question at hand is how would the bottle behave if the conditions of FE and UA were correct.  The test presented doesn't accurately represent what would happen under UA.  That is what AATW and I have been discussing.  IF the earth were flat and accelerating upwards due to UA the water and bottle would behave exactly the same way as under GR.  Which one happens to be true is irrelevant to the test.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 24, 2021, 02:59:01 PM
Quote
Yes, but equivalence allows acceleration and gravity to cause motion in two different ways in the two differing views.

Gravity doesn’t cause motion in GR. That's where the disconnect is. In GR gravity isn’t a force and only a force can cause motion.  FE wants to say, “In GR gravity isn’t a force, therefore in GR gravity doesn’t cause motion.”  but GR doesn’t say that gravity causes motion.  They are disputing a conclusion that GR doesn’t make. 

Quote
Does FE state that the effect of acceleration is the warping of spacetime?  I don't believe it does but admittedly don't know.

Tom I know rejects it, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen an “official position”.  Logically, they have to reject it (so at least Tom is consistent in that) because if acceleration warps space time then the EP as justification for UA goes out the window (no pun intended).  It allows for not just an alternate, but a better explanation for gravity than UA.

If you accept that acceleration warps spacetime and maintain consistency between Newtonian and GR concepts, this is where a coherent argument leads...acceleration causes spacetime warp, acceleration and gravity are the same thing, therefore, gravity is the warping of spacetime, not some force that accelerates the earth up.

Quote
IF the earth were flat and accelerating upwards due to UA the water and bottle would behave exactly the same way as under GR.  Which one happens to be true is irrelevant to the test.

Since the EP doesn’t apply, there is no reason to assume that, and other reasons to assume that it would not be the case.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 24, 2021, 03:17:02 PM
FE wants to say, “In GR gravity isn’t a force, therefore in GR gravity doesn’t cause motion.”
Could you perhaps show an example of FE'ers wanting to say that? Keep in mind that your current conversation is a bunch of RE'ers unable to agree on the fundamentals of the model they claim to support - FE'ers have long abandoned this mess.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 24, 2021, 04:14:59 PM
Quote
Could you perhaps show an example of FE'ers wanting to say that? Keep in mind that your current conversation is a bunch of RE'ers unable to agree on the fundamentals of the model they claim to support - FE'ers have long abandoned this mess.

Point well taken.  I don't recall ever seeing it explicitly stated that way.  However, I would argue that is the only logical reason for rejecting the idea that gravity is a "force".  If gravity is a force, then the motion of falling objects can be contributed to gravity and there is no reason to come up with UA as an alternative theory to explain why things fall.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 24, 2021, 06:12:41 PM
Keep in mind that your current conversation is a bunch of RE'ers unable to agree on the fundamentals of the model they claim.

The conversation from a couple of us has simply been to explain that the proposed experiment doesn’t accurately represent what would happen under FE principles.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 24, 2021, 06:21:59 PM
However, I would argue that is the only logical reason for rejecting the idea that gravity is a "force".  If gravity is a force, then the motion of falling objects can be contributed to gravity and there is no reason to come up with UA as an alternative theory to explain why things fall.
That flips the discussion on its head. I'm sure you'll find some people who reach this conclusion, but generalising a bit I don't think FE'ers as a whole deny that the RE gravitational model can work. The question is more whether it's what actually occurs in reality.

RE is an OK-ish simulation of reality. Things falling can be attributed to gravitation as proposed by RE'ers, especially if we restrict ourselves to everyday observations normal people can make.
Title: Re: Simple Experiments
Post by: fisherman on April 25, 2021, 03:17:08 AM
Quote
That flips the discussion on its head

Not really. Conceding that Gravity/RE can work doesn’t solve the problem of how UA/FE needs to cherry pick from competing concepts to argue that what we see in reality is UA and not gravity.

If what we see in reality is UA, then gravity cannot be the force that causes the downward acceleration of objects.  If gravity causes it, then it is impossible that UA causes it.

The easiest way to dismiss the idea that gravity is the force that causes downward acceleration is to reject the idea that it is a force at all.