The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Blart on August 07, 2017, 03:04:47 PM

Title: The Moon
Post by: Blart on August 07, 2017, 03:04:47 PM
When the Moon is over the Equator on FE
How is it that peope in both hemispheres see the same face of the moon and in fact everyone including people in a position that the moon is travelling to see the same face as the moon as people that observe the moon as it has past over head.

All those people at the same time see the same face of the moon. How does FE explain this.
Thanks.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 07, 2017, 03:15:45 PM
This is because the higher a receding body is, the less it turns to its side to perspective. In the Moon's case it is such a great hight that it barely turns at all (it does turn a little, however; look up the moon's daily liberation).

The Ancient Greeks did not really test how perspective works on a large scale, and their math assumes a continuous universe (ie. that the turn will be infinitely slower, and that perspective lines will recede infinitely into the distance without meeting) without any real evidence for that at all.

It is possible to theorize with their math that the moon should turn more than it does, but no real evidence for how things should be at that scale. Does the slowness max out at some point? Do the perspective lines really continue infinitely? These are unanswered questions and an ancient mathematical model is insufficient as an explanation.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Blart on August 07, 2017, 03:48:14 PM
Why are you talking about how the Moon turns? Im talking about observation from say 4 peoples position on earth looking at the Moon at the same time. So The question is simpler than that.

If im below a ball  that is hanging from the centre of a room and im in one corner of the room and you are below the ball in another corner of the room and the ball has a dot drawn on it facing directly my face. How is the dot directly facing your face at the same time?
It doesnt matter if you put the ball a mile high the dot will always only be facing me and not you.. Please tell me how this fits with what i see at night with everyone else that observes the same thing.

Imagine the moon is directly in the middle of 4 peoples positions on Earth at one point in the night. One observer see the moon travelling towards him. Then over his head and then away While another observer sees the moon disapearing away from him. The third sees the moon travelling across the sky from left to right. The fourth observer sees the moon travelling the opposite way. How do they all see the same "face" of the moon at any point of the moons travels over the night?
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 07, 2017, 05:03:04 PM
If you have a solved rubix cube suspended 1 foot above your head and look upwards you will see its white underside. If this rubix cube then floats across the room you will be able to see its green colored side when it reaches the far wall 30 feet away.

However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see its green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Blart on August 07, 2017, 05:39:36 PM
I assure you, Use a telescope and you will see the different sides of the cube from all different locations from below in great detail. Do you not see how much the view of the moon would be different to someone in the extreme north compared to extreme south positions on the Earth? Even without a telescope? Sorry but i honestly came here to find out what you guys had for these questions.
Im not a basher of FE earth at all .if anything i wanted to learn the full theory but these questions ive posted i think ae seriously tough to answer for FE .Just wanted to see if you guys had a concrete answer as to why.

To me the same view of the Moon we see doesnt add up to FE earth theory.
The Stars rotation hasnt been answered yet.
The North pole Moon observation is something of a puzzle too for me to fit with FE theory. So yep i honestly just wanted to know how the current model fits with those questions ive asked.

 
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: model 29 on August 07, 2017, 05:54:30 PM
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Blart on August 07, 2017, 06:09:00 PM
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

I agree
A person below the Moon would see the bottom. Two people far apart would get a 45 degree view and so 90 degrees difference to them . Theres absolutely no way all three of them would see the same view of the Moon. Altitude of the Moon makes no difference. The angles narrow down but its impossible physically for everyone to see the same side. Especially with a good old telescope. I was hoping for a good answer to this one.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 07, 2017, 09:02:01 PM
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

I agree
A person below the Moon would see the bottom. Two people far apart would get a 45 degree view and so 90 degrees difference to them . Theres absolutely no way all three of them would see the same view of the Moon. Altitude of the Moon makes no difference. The angles narrow down but its impossible physically for everyone to see the same side. Especially with a good old telescope. I was hoping for a good answer to this one.

Lets go back to the rubix cube example. The rubix cube is suspended 1 mile in the air and the people in the room, standing at every corner of the 30 foot by 30 foot room, will all see the same white underside of the rubix cube when they look upwards. No one is really disagreeing with this.

We do not know what relationship perspective will scale at, but to showcase a simple example of how it could all be possible, let us take that relationship and imagine that it is linear and multiply by 3000. The rubix cube is now 3000 miles (1 x 3000) in the air and instead of a 30 foot long room we have a 90,000 foot long room (30 x 3000). 90,000 feet is over 17 miles, which is more than the distance to the horizon's vanishing point near sea level. This means that the rubix cube could travel from overhead to the vanishing point and rotate less than it would if it were 1 mile in height and moving across 30 feet.

That is just one example for how perspective could scale. There are other possibilities which might result in a different outcome (imagining that the relationship is continuous like the Ancient Greeks did, for example), but since there is no available research on the maximums of perspective theory, we are not permitted to say how distant bodies will appear to the observer.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Blart on August 07, 2017, 09:05:05 PM
So as you've recalculated that as linear from the given size of the room can you now give the figures you have for how high and big the Moon is and how big Earth is? I could calculate the angles from that from two given points on Earth at night.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 07, 2017, 09:10:34 PM
That was merely an example of possibility, not an actual figure. There is a lack of research on the maximums of perspective theory and it is quite possible that it may scale or operate differently than the scenario I invented on the spot.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 07, 2017, 09:13:20 PM
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

I agree
A person below the Moon would see the bottom. Two people far apart would get a 45 degree view and so 90 degrees difference to them . Theres absolutely no way all three of them would see the same view of the Moon. Altitude of the Moon makes no difference. The angles narrow down but its impossible physically for everyone to see the same side. Especially with a good old telescope. I was hoping for a good answer to this one.

Lets go back to the rubix cube example. The rubix cube is suspended 1 mile in the air and the people in the room, standing at every corner of the 30 foot by 30 foot room, will all see the same white underside of the rubix cube when they look upwards. No one is really disagreeing with this.

We do not know what relationship perspective will scale at, but to showcase a simple example of how it could all be possible, let us take that relationship and imagine that it is linear and multiply by 3000. The rubix cube is now 3000 miles (1 x 3000) in the air and instead of a 30 foot long room we have a 90,000 foot long room (30 x 3000). 90,000 feet is over 17 miles, which is more than the distance to the horizon's vanishing point near sea level. This means that the rubix cube could travel from overhead to the vanishing point and rotate less than it would if it were 1 mile in height and moving across 30 feet.

That is just one example for how perspective could scale. There are other possibilities which might result in a different outcome (imagining that the relationship is continuous like the Ancient Greeks did, for example), but since there is no available research on the maximums of perspective theory, we are not permitted to say how distant bodies will appear to the observer.
But we're not talking about that small of a relationship. 1 mile compared to 30 feet isn't what's being discussed. The moon can be seen from two people more than 5,000 miles apart. If the moon were 3,000 miles up, why would they not see vastly different views of the moon? For your Rubiks cube, a more accurate statement is if the cube was 1 mile up, would people in the corners of a 1 mile square room see different sides? Watching a plane flyover suggests they would. Why would the moon be different at the same distance ratio? Not to mention what does the vanishing point have to do with this?

The distance ratios you are proposing DO however fit much closer to the numbers proposed by RE. The moon is 238,857 miles away. The longest distance between two observers who should be able to see it is approx. 12,000 miles. That's roughly a viewing difference of 3 degrees. Not even comparable to the FE hypothesis.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: model 29 on August 07, 2017, 09:16:57 PM
If the moon were 3000 miles up and moved 17 miles, it would still be pretty much directly overhead just like moving 30feet under a rubix cube a mile up.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Blart on August 07, 2017, 09:18:26 PM
Forgive me guys im very new to this FE stuff but all the models ive ever seen put the Sun and Moon very low over the flat Earth which made me think of the obvious flaw of people seeing completley opposite sides of a ball as it goes past. Can this debait go on without figures of size, Altitude, Size of the flat Earth?
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Blart on August 07, 2017, 09:24:00 PM
The size of the Moon can be fairly well guestamated by a layman by the size of its craters.
Any mpacts big enough to move it 'Would have moved it' or deformed it so we know by looking at the Moons craters and the craters "Blast radius" the rough size of it.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: model 29 on August 08, 2017, 01:54:58 AM
The size of the Moon can be fairly well guestamated by a layman by the size of its craters.
Any mpacts big enough to move it 'Would have moved it' or deformed it so we know by looking at the Moons craters and the craters "Blast radius" the rough size of it.
You have a formula for all that?  What do you "guestimate" the diameter to be?
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2017, 02:13:27 PM
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
I'm sure we all agree with that, but the moon moves much more than a mile or two according to FET.

As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.

If something is a specific height, and from directly underneath two people traveled in opposite directions away and stopped after traveling a distance equal to it's height, they will have a 90 degree difference in their viewing angles of that object.  At roughly what point, and why, would that change?

I agree
A person below the Moon would see the bottom. Two people far apart would get a 45 degree view and so 90 degrees difference to them . Theres absolutely no way all three of them would see the same view of the Moon. Altitude of the Moon makes no difference. The angles narrow down but its impossible physically for everyone to see the same side. Especially with a good old telescope. I was hoping for a good answer to this one.

Lets go back to the rubix cube example. The rubix cube is suspended 1 mile in the air and the people in the room, standing at every corner of the 30 foot by 30 foot room, will all see the same white underside of the rubix cube when they look upwards. No one is really disagreeing with this.

We do not know what relationship perspective will scale at, but to showcase a simple example of how it could all be possible, let us take that relationship and imagine that it is linear and multiply by 3000. The rubix cube is now 3000 miles (1 x 3000) in the air and instead of a 30 foot long room we have a 90,000 foot long room (30 x 3000). 90,000 feet is over 17 miles, which is more than the distance to the horizon's vanishing point near sea level. This means that the rubix cube could travel from overhead to the vanishing point and rotate less than it would if it were 1 mile in height and moving across 30 feet.

That is just one example for how perspective could scale. There are other possibilities which might result in a different outcome (imagining that the relationship is continuous like the Ancient Greeks did, for example), but since there is no available research on the maximums of perspective theory, we are not permitted to say how distant bodies will appear to the observer.
But we're not talking about that small of a relationship. 1 mile compared to 30 feet isn't what's being discussed. The moon can be seen from two people more than 5,000 miles apart. If the moon were 3,000 miles up, why would they not see vastly different views of the moon? For your Rubiks cube, a more accurate statement is if the cube was 1 mile up, would people in the corners of a 1 mile square room see different sides? Watching a plane flyover suggests they would. Why would the moon be different at the same distance ratio? Not to mention what does the vanishing point have to do with this?

The distance ratios you are proposing DO however fit much closer to the numbers proposed by RE. The moon is 238,857 miles away. The longest distance between two observers who should be able to see it is approx. 12,000 miles. That's roughly a viewing difference of 3 degrees. Not even comparable to the FE hypothesis.

Again, we have no idea how perspective works at larger scales. One could easily claim that perspective scales repressively and slows down to an increasingly infinitesimal pace with increased distance, and that theory would be just as accurate as the theories of the Ancient Greeks who have neglected to provide evidence for the maximums of perspective theory.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Blart on August 08, 2017, 02:24:17 PM
The size of the Moon can be fairly well guestamated by a layman by the size of its craters.
Any mpacts big enough to move it 'Would have moved it' or deformed it so we know by looking at the Moons craters and the craters "Blast radius" the rough size of it.
You have a formula for all that?  What do you "guestimate" the diameter to be?

A Guestamation of the Moons size going by Crater size and Blast radius (Which is still there) and Shadows cast from Craters brings the Moon close to 3500Km in diameter. This Guestamation puts its distance from us at around 390,000- 410,000 Kms away from us. using discrepancy...  Whats your best guess at its distance?
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Romuotik on August 14, 2017, 08:49:31 PM
When the Moon is over the Equator on FE
How is it that peope in both hemispheres see the same face of the moon and in fact everyone including people in a position that the moon is travelling to see the same face as the moon as people that observe the moon as it has past over head.

All those people at the same time see the same face of the moon. How does FE explain this.
Thanks.

The answer to this question is simple.
Because the moon above us is not next to us
When something is above us, we see nothing but one face. But if we move as he moves, and his position is nearby, we will see many aspects to him.
The truth is that the moon is above us and not next to us
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/byL6b2dmaeKYWBqKG-WBqbOLQSd-vfxS3CTOUE6TsNiVZUrKT-H_rgPshwLAQhWsKGpNTDDhIkhx7GEm5C8hPzsrxt-mbOnkEycbL4TI3vKWyUexbr8Dp87tET7Lh7VJloAAIPgG0PKdrzAI-f4rN3Zf7AAv2KRCN2VETYgkKLMzCFb-9Cvlt6ICApJw1rIDTSXS0Ee-BSQVyyY86qgApD4L_X3JyBXH3IJhYL5LvFoAGaYHPR0mWHZNoxheRitxLrKZdFl7QyTQmYPMEnWSDgwcIVQb8b3IJMk8UnummBwLzeRSrCCnS38r0IjyxmSLIJINdJwpJ9clkvsiT4-y4kOxdjtOwV7-TpoiN2aryqjs8WBXqRe-lGypW7Ktn-t2bApnF5AqfnO_C1rr_BZqOD4ycOrqpJ7DAPutg90jkjnHm8b9Na4l39A558Wcc93expZf5f4-x42R1EWVsho7bpj48SxNH1DSGdr-s7b-NoLXfhD6OZwk08Ex7n0vPNgkc_F4MNWMc1g0x-Z4-8Z_tWiA6jJVvG47AcUdhNYHVg96kQhUAgOOXTxxHXtgqrPGsXsO5zwSAWwcC_JkRZSa9sYknalwPDqly-KVuOXTSpxV33azhSYe=w800-h600-no)[/font][/size][/color]
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Hmmm on August 17, 2017, 12:06:12 AM
Blart, maybe there are multiple of moons, as well as suns (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6625.0)?
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: TomInAustin on August 17, 2017, 07:08:04 PM
That was merely an example of possibility, not an actual figure. There is a lack of research on the maximums of perspective theory and it is quite possible that it may scale or operate differently than the scenario I invented on the spot.

Here is proof you are wrong.  Assume 3 people standing on a line where the center is roughly under "your" 3000-mile high moon that's 32 miles in diameter.   I made my line 2627 miles as that was a random drag across the USA in Google Earth (but that's not relevant)  This diagram proves that someone on each end and one in the middle would see 3 totally different views of the moon.  Since we know that's not possible we know the moon is not 3000 miles high.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 17, 2017, 08:04:40 PM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: inquisitive on August 17, 2017, 08:23:16 PM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.
Unfortunately your use of the word 'perspective' does not agree the accepted meaning.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ... "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Rekt on August 18, 2017, 12:02:56 AM
The distance to the moon is solidly known. If you have a steady enough aim (Not your hand, some kind of system), a laser, a receiver, and good timing software for it, you can calculate using the speed of light as a known constant and the return time to get the distance. We have done this using the Lunar Rangefinding Receivers, left by the Apollo astronauts.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: model 29 on August 18, 2017, 02:11:28 AM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.
  Why would it not?  How would it actually change?
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2017, 03:11:17 AM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.
  Why would it not?  How would it actually change?

We already went over that in this thread. There is no evidence for those Ancient Greek ideas of how perspective works at large scales.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 18, 2017, 03:41:02 AM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.
  Why would it not?  How would it actually change?

We already went over that in this thread. There is no evidence for those Ancient Greek ideas of how perspective works at large scales.
Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2017, 03:57:30 AM
Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 18, 2017, 04:49:20 AM
Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
But the moon shouldn't shift by more than a few degrees, which it does. Unless you're talking about something other than what I'm familiar with. I'll admit I have no idea what you're meaning or getting at with those other two statements though. But perhaps I should look into this and try and figure out what you're talking about and make another thread so this one doesn't get too far off topic. Because what you're saying looks like complete nonsense based on what I currently know.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: geckothegeek on August 18, 2017, 03:18:47 PM
Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
But the moon shouldn't shift by more than a few degrees, which it does. Unless you're talking about something other than what I'm familiar with. I'll admit I have no idea what you're meaning or getting at with those other two statements though. But perhaps I should look into this and try and figure out what you're talking about and make another thread so this one doesn't get too far off topic. Because what you're saying looks like complete nonsense based on what I currently know.

I thought I was the only person having trouble with understanding Tom Bishop. Guess I'm not alone.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 18, 2017, 03:30:47 PM
Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
But the moon shouldn't shift by more than a few degrees, which it does. Unless you're talking about something other than what I'm familiar with. I'll admit I have no idea what you're meaning or getting at with those other two statements though. But perhaps I should look into this and try and figure out what you're talking about and make another thread so this one doesn't get too far off topic. Because what you're saying looks like complete nonsense based on what I currently know.

I thought I was the only person having trouble with understanding Tom Bishop. Guess I'm not alone.
Most of what he has to say about his 'perspective theory' issues I have a hard time understanding. He always gets really vague, and begins to talk about things that make no sense. Although thinking about it I believe the stars comment makes sense if you assume the Earth is flat and - as he puts it - perspective converges at infinity. But there's no issues with that on a RE because the stars rotate out of view because of the turning of the planet. Hmm, I wonder if this can or should be applied to other things to explain what he's talking about. Although it doesn't explain what he means by the Saturn thing.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: TomInAustin on August 18, 2017, 09:15:45 PM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2017, 09:31:19 PM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

Please back up your ideas for how perspective works at that scale with an example of where we have seen distant objects turn to perspective like that.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: inquisitive on August 18, 2017, 09:38:30 PM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

Please back up your ideas for how perspective works at that scale with an example of where we have seen distant objects turn to perspective like that.
'objects turn to perspective' is a meaningless set of words.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: TomInAustin on August 18, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

Please back up your ideas for how perspective works at that scale with an example of where we have seen distant objects turn to perspective like that.

Again you try to twist the point.  Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle.   If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on.  You are not going to see their back.  I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet.  As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away.  It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2017, 10:58:19 PM
Again you try to twist the point.  Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle.   If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on.  You are not going to see their back.  I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet.  As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away.  It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.

Your evidence is based on a thought experiment, not what actually happens at large distances.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: TomInAustin on August 18, 2017, 11:07:54 PM
Again you try to twist the point.  Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle.   If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on.  You are not going to see their back.  I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet.  As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away.  It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.

Your evidence is based on a thought experiment, not what actually happens at large distances.

No, it's based on reality.  You can't read a billboard from the back or see the other side of a sphere no matter how bad you want it to be so.   It's proven that the moon is much further than 3000 miles.  Angles do not lie, the math does not lie. 





Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: TomInAustin on August 18, 2017, 11:56:09 PM
Perfect proof using Tom's favorite Rubix cube model of a 32x32 mile cube at 3000 miles

Shots were slightly south of center line to show the 3d geometry

Figur d1 shows 3000-mile geometry
Figure d2 shows that the east face is Light blue and dark blue, the bottom is black and white, and the front face of light and dark green
Figure d3 shows the west face is light pink and dark pink, the bottom is black and white, and the front face of light and dark green
Figure d4 shows that a viewer east of the center line would see the bottom black and white, the east blue face and the front green face
Figure d5 shows that a viewer west of the center line would see the bottom black and white, the west pink face and the front green face
Figure d6 shows that a viewer on the center line would see the bottom black and white and the front green face

This proves what we already knew, you can never see more than three sides of a cube and 3000 miles is not nearly far enough away for everyone to see the same view of a cube or the moon.

Obviously, distance is not relevant.  This works at 3 microns, 3 mm, 3 inches, 3 miles, 3000 miles.   Tom would have us believe in some magic light bending where all my viewers saw the same thing.  Not going to happen. 

Case closed.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: TomInAustin on August 19, 2017, 12:06:30 AM
Attached is the moon cube file.  Get Sketchup, it's a great program.  This file will make you smile when you rotate around views and see how impossible it is to have a moon 3000 miles away and still have everyone see the same face.

Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 19, 2017, 01:15:55 AM
You may as well point us to Aristotle's 2000 year old book which contains his perspective theory illustrations; which is right next to his book which tells us that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: geckothegeek on August 19, 2017, 02:15:40 AM
Many of the flat earth ideas would be true IF the earth WAS flat.
But the earth IS NOT flat.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: geckothegeek on August 19, 2017, 02:31:25 AM
The distance to the moon is solidly known. If you have a steady enough aim (Not your hand, some kind of system), a laser, a receiver, and good timing software for it, you can calculate using the speed of light as a known constant and the return time to get the distance. We have done this using the Lunar Rangefinding Receivers, left by the Apollo astronauts.

Amateur radio operators have also calculated the distance to the moon in their "Moon Bounce" experiments, using the speed of radio waves as a constant and the return time to get the distance. They have done this by transmitting radio signals to the moon, "bouncing" them off the moon's surface , and noting when they were received back on the earth.
The results compared with the known distance and it was not 3,000 miles. On one example the distance was calculated to be 238,150 miles.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: TomInAustin on August 19, 2017, 04:07:05 PM
You may as well point us to Aristotle's 2000 year old book which contains his perspective theory illustrations; which is right next to his book which tells us that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.


Or a more recent book by a quack who faked his experiments, ran from any debate and was a known fraud.  Wow, that sounds like someone here.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: juner on August 20, 2017, 04:39:57 AM
You may as well point us to Aristotle's 2000 year old book which contains his perspective theory illustrations; which is right next to his book which tells us that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.


Or a more recent book by a quack who faked his experiments, ran from any debate and was a known fraud.  Wow, that sounds like someone here.

That is quite a claim you have made there. Although you didn't name anyone specifically, so you could just be making things up.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: TomInAustin on August 20, 2017, 02:50:16 PM
You may as well point us to Aristotle's 2000 year old book which contains his perspective theory illustrations; which is right next to his book which tells us that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.


Or a more recent book by a quack who faked his experiments, ran from any debate and was a known fraud.  Wow, that sounds like someone here.

That is quite a claim you have made there. Although you didn't name anyone specifically, so you could just be making things up.


I think there's not much doubt what author/con man/experiment faker I am talking about.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: model 29 on August 20, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.
  Why would it not?  How would it actually change?

We already went over that in this thread.
No, not really, only you basically saying "no one has physically measured it, so I assume it changes."

Quote
There is no evidence for those Ancient Greek ideas of how perspective works at large scales.
So with no evidence or explanation as to what causes perspective to bend (I suppose we can call this bendy perspective), you're saying it just so happens to do it in a way that makes things look like they would if Earth were a globe.
Title: Re: The Moon
Post by: geckothegeek on August 20, 2017, 11:31:33 PM
Quote: "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown." : End of  quote