[HorstFue]

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

Sorry, did I say, I fully understand the concept "Celestial Sphere"? No.
I just mentioned, according the authors of the referred article, this is a imaginary model, which cannot be observed in real world.
It's a method to create a chart of stars for what purpose ever.
It was You who produced a real world incarnation from this.

[Tom Bishop]

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



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

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

Now draw in the observer's horizon with a blue line like I did with the illustration at the end of Page 1 and show us how the moon's phase can be pointing away from the horizon for an observer on the dark side of the earth.

[xenotolerance]

okay


the moon is low to the eastern horizon, with its lit side facing the western horizon

made a closeup with multiple observers and moon positions


also found this animation that clarifies how it moves over time

[Tom Bishop]

okay


the moon is low to the eastern horizon, with its lit side facing the western horizon

made a closeup with multiple observers and moon positions

Good. Now which of those positions you've created illustrates the phase of the moon facing AWAY from the horizon?

[xenotolerance]

all of them? none of them?

the horizon is seen in all directions, isn't it, so the moon faces both towards and away from the horizon, you dig?

anyway I already pointed out how the picture you showed earlier is consistent with these diagrams; I guess that picture is most like the phase that's 3rd from the top, for the observer at 12 o'clock with the most recent sunset

[garygreen]

tom: imagine yourself standing in a large, dark room.  you see this sphere directly in front of you:


where is the light source?

[Opeo]

You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun.

One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?

The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.

How does connecting the moon and the sun with a string show that the moon is pointed at the sun? It is possible to connect any two points in your vision.

In a 3D model of an arrow pointing at a sphere, the arrow should ALWAYS be pointed at the sphere, from wherever you look at it. There can't be an illusion where the arrow is not pointing at the sphere. From wherever you are around the objects, the arrow will be pointed at the sphere.

The discussion has gotten a bit bogged down in specifics over the last few pages, but here's what we mean by the lighted side of the moon always pointing at the sun, even after sunset:

I drew out the phenomenon on a skychart to show how anything pointing "away" from the horizon doesn't really make sense.

Next time you're outside, and see this illusion, pull out a string and try it for yourself.  It always lines up.

[Tumeni]

Good. Now which of those positions you've created illustrates the phase of the moon facing AWAY from the horizon?

You do realise all these illustrations are from the position of an imaginary observer suspended in space, set off to the side of the Earth/Moon/Sun system (EDIT - ABOVE the system), and that you have to turn these around, possibly invert them, to imagine yourself as the observer on Earth, don't you?

Simply drawing a line on these diagrams shows a tangent line based on their imaginary position, not a horizon line from their viewpoint....

[Tumeni]

In the illustrations in #42, three lines connect Earth and Moon. However, the range of locations from which the Moon can be observed are best described with reference to a Spherical Cap.

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

Determine position of Moon, draw a line connecting the centres of both bodies, passing through the points on their surfaces which are nearest each other, and the range of locations from which the Moon can be seen will be described by a spherical cap, where line h passes through this connecting line, and the meeting point of lines a and r is the point at which a line can be drawn from the Moon to a tangent on Earth's surface.



Anyone on Earth at the highest point of line h will have the Moon directly overhead. Anyone at the end of line a/r will have it on their horizon. Anyone inbetween will see the Moon at some elevation between these extremes.

In short, you need more info on observer/photographer location before drawing a horizon line for such an observer.

[Ratboy]

I hope some people will find this amusing.
Using once again a Zetetic approach, last night I looked at the moon around midnight.  It appeared to be lit from a direction more or less straight underground which in a round earth model would be Jakarta or there abouts.  In a flat earth model, the sun should be uhm, where would that be?  That is, how would I get to Jakarta?  Back to the round earth model, if I headed pretty much any direction, it would not matter since it is on the other side of the world.  I knew a guy that did not want to travel with his wife so he sent her across the Atlantic and he went over the Pacific and their flight times were very similar. On a flat earth model, if you do not fly over the North Pole, it is going to take a long time to get there.  So the moon should have looked like it was being lit from the direction of the North Star, not from underground if the sun circles a flat earth.

Then I thought about that photo near the start of this thread.  As I noticed often here, the people that took that photo are from Imperial College London, so I assume our flat earth evidence is again from the land of Rowbotham.  Now since that photo was taken an hour after sunset and the waxing moon is in the south east about 45degrees up, I would suspect that was taken during the summer months.  So let us say it is 10:00pm London time (sun setting at 9:00 pm).  So at that time, the sun would be over approximately Aukland longitutde.  So in a round earth model, the sun should be to the west of the observers, and in a flat earth model, it should once again be coming from the north north east (which is where Aukland would be flat earth wise).
Taking a Zenetic approach, even if the sun looks high in the sky according to the moon tilt thing, there is no evidence here to support a flat earth model.  So we can argue about intricacies on the accuracy of the round earth model based on some photo taken in England, but it is a wild jump to then proclaim that the earth is flat when none of the evidence supports that at all. 
I think the answer once again is to just take the Zenetic approach and look for yourself at the world around you.

[garygreen]

Next time you're outside, and see this illusion, pull out a string and try it for yourself.  It always lines up.

oh yeah, i totally forgot about this.

tom, forget about all the other stuff in this thread.  just be a good empiricist and demonstrate the fact of the matter for yourself with a piece of string.

[Tumeni]

Presuming Tom's example photo to have been taken from London, as suggested above, here's a demo of how a viewer in London can see the Moon in their south-east, whilst themselves being in twilight, and hence unable to see the Sun.

I've taken no account of axial tilt, since I don't know when the photo was taken, so this should be taken as an approximation to demonstrate the principle.

In the first slide, you HAVE to use your imagination, for the Moon should be nearer to you than the flat of the page/screen. This is reflected in the plan view second slide.

[Tom Bishop]

The moon phase is still pointing towards the horizon in both of those images. You need the moon phase to point AWAY from the horizon.

[Opeo]

The moon phase is still pointing towards the horizon in both of those images. You need the moon phase to point AWAY from the horizon.

Can you draw on a skychart how the lighted part of the moon would ever not be pointing at the horizon? The horizon is a circle completely surrounding us so the only way I can see that as possible is during a new moon, which isn't what we're talking about.

[Westprog]

I find this thread interesting as an insight into how evidence is taken. We have a recognised optical illusion, whereby we misjudge the source of the light illuminating the moon. We can verify that it's an optical illusion using the very simple string stretching exercise. We draw a line between the Sun and Moon and, yes, it is exactly as it should be.

But what about when the Sun isn't in the sky? When, according to conventional thinking, the Sun is blocked by the round Earth? In that case, say the FEs, we can ignore the previously demonstrated optical illusion, and say that the Sun must be above the horizon.

Of course, this leads to all kinds of problems for the FE theory. For once, if the Sun is above the horizon, then why can't we see it? If refraction is curving the light away, then it would curve the light away from the moon as well. Oh, but the Sun is a spotlight? Then how is it illuminating the moon at all, if it's just shining downwards.

And so we get ever more esoteric theories of complicated optical convolution. If the Sun is above the Moon, it must be higher in the sky. If the light from the Sun reflected off the Moon is bright enough to read by, then why is there no light visible directly from the Sun? It becomes ever more incoherent.

Try drawing a flat Earth diagram like the ones shown above that makes a lick of sense. It can't be done. Try it with a disk Moon, sphere Moon, spotlight Sun, sphere Sun, disk Sun, or any other shapes, and none of it makes the slightest sense.

But this is how FE theory works. There's no real attempt to provide working models for a flat Earth, no flat Earth map, no astronomical measurements, no flat Earth navigation. It's a matter of pointing out supposed anomalies, areas of misunderstanding.

Flat Earth is considered a fact, not something to be established. When evidence contradicts flat Earth, as it inevitably will; often evidence cited by the flat Earth proponents themselves; then it can simply be ignored. No flat Earth proponent will seriously engage with the challenge to draw a diagram that explains how the Sun can illuminate the Moon and at the same time be invisible. It's not necessary, because thinking about how a flat Earth would actually work is just ignored.

[Tumeni]

The moon phase is still pointing towards the horizon in both of those images. You need the moon phase to point AWAY from the horizon.

Please explain further what you mean by this, or better still, illustrate it for us. I've shown a line connecting moon and sun, and the illuminated hemisphere of the Moon faces the Sun. To my mind, that IS the 'phase' pointing toward the Sun.

[Tom Bishop]

The moon phase is still pointing towards the horizon in both of those images. You need the moon phase to point AWAY from the horizon.

Please explain further what you mean by this, or better still, illustrate it for us. I've shown a line connecting moon and sun, and the illuminated hemisphere of the Moon faces the Sun. To my mind, that IS the 'phase' pointing toward the Sun.

In RET the horizon is a plane that sits on the surface of the earth. Things are either pointed towards it or away from it. Things are pointed either up or down. Towards the earth or away from it.

It is not possible for the moon phase to be pointed into the sky, away from the earth, one hour after the sun has set under the Round Earth model. All illustrations here have the phase of the moon phase pointing towards the earth.

The moon is pointing AWAY from the earth in the photograph, and this is what you need to illustrate.

[Tumeni]

Sorry, but you're just repeating yourself.

Please explain what you mean by the Moon phase 'pointing' in any particular direction. What's the pointer? How are you identifying this 'pointer' on my diagrams? Is it one of the lines I've drawn, or another one that's in your imagination? If the latter, how are we supposed to know what it is?

[Tom Bishop]

I drew out the phenomenon on a skychart to show how anything pointing "away" from the horizon doesn't really make sense.

Perhaps horizon isn't the best word to use. The moon is pointing AWAY from the earth in this illustration. The center point is out into space. It needs to be pointing TOWARDS the earth, since the sun is on the day side.

[Tom Bishop]

Sorry, but you're just repeating yourself.

Please explain what you mean by the Moon phase 'pointing' in any particular direction. What's the pointer? How are you identifying this 'pointer' on my diagrams? Is it one of the lines I've drawn, or another one that's in your imagination? If the latter, how are we supposed to know what it is?

If the earth is round and we are on the night side the phase of the moon would point TOWARDS the earth. The sun is on the other side. The moon would be pointing in that direction.

But we have a photograph of the moon pointing AWAY from the earth.

In all illustrations so far we have seen that the moon is pointing TOWARDS the earth. It is not possible to create an illustration where the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth, the opposite direction from the sun, from a position on the night side.

Are we clear?