Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2014, 10:15:10 PM »
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Rama Set

Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2014, 10:41:27 PM »
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

Although this point is a little heavy-handed, I tend to agree.  Your observation appears close enough to the model on it's face that I would not be surprised a more technical analysis of what you saw would be able to account for it satisfactorily. 

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2014, 11:06:11 PM »
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened.  I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment.  I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2014, 11:10:08 PM »
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened.  I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment.  I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2014, 11:13:31 PM »
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened.  I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment.  I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.

When did I do that?  I presented them as vacation photos.  I reported observations, which were backed up by photographs.  Nothing more.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2014, 12:47:11 AM »
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened.  I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment.  I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.

When did I do that?  I presented them as vacation photos.  I reported observations, which were backed up by photographs.  Nothing more.  Don't put words in my mouth.
For one example, here:
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 
That was not a full moon. When you're on vacation, do you expect us to know that you're not being rigorous in your claims?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7741
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2014, 01:52:24 AM »
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 
Just out of curiosity, are you sure that it was it the actual day of the full moon?  To me, at least, the moon's apparent fullness on the the day before, the day of and the day after the full moon all look pretty much the same.
Actually Tintagel already noted that his observation was the day after that full moon.

Also, I've repeatedly pointed out the straw man that FEers sometimes use that the moon orbits in a circle, ignoring Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They've been making that obvious mistake since EnaG.

Her observation, in fact. 

And yes, it was 24 hours after the actual full moon. 
Then it wasn't a full moon that you observed.  Technically, the moon is "full" for all of about a minute.

I know because the night before was a total lunar eclipse, one of those "rare" ones when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky, another violation of the RET moon model. 
Actually, selenelion occurs every lunar eclipse.   However, since it only occurs where the totality of the lunar eclipse is visible at sunrise or sunset, it's rarely observed.  Then again, that's another discussion.

Moreover, if the moon's orbit subtends an arc of ~30 degrees in the sky in a mere 24 hours, then there should only be ~12 days between moon phases. There are photos elsewhere on the forum of this moon.
If you look at a moonrise/moonset chart, you will notice that, from day to day, the time for moonrise will change anywhere from about 45 to 75 minutes or so.  Moonrise on the day after the full moon is about 55 minutes later than moonrise on the day of the full moon.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2014, 05:13:29 AM »
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened.  I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment.  I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.

When did I do that?  I presented them as vacation photos.  I reported observations, which were backed up by photographs.  Nothing more.  Don't put words in my mouth.
For one example, here:
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 
That was not a full moon. When you're on vacation, do you expect us to know that you're not being rigorous in your claims?

If the moon is only full for about five minutes, then very few people actually see one, I suppose. 

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2014, 05:35:16 AM »
If the moon is only full for about five minutes, then very few people actually see one, I suppose.
I guess you're learning. I suppose I should give you some credit.

Here's the big mistake that you've made. You decided that the RET definition of the full moon allowed that you could discern one without consulting a calendar or using a telescope. When you reason from faulty premises and then come up with a conclusion that RET is faulty, you fail.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2014, 12:14:59 PM »
Nonetheless, ignoring simple geometry doesn't advance your case, Gulliver.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #50 on: December 29, 2014, 05:43:08 AM »
Nonetheless, ignoring simple geometry doesn't advance your case, Gulliver.
And what simple geometry has anyone ignored?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #51 on: December 29, 2014, 02:25:19 PM »
And what simple geometry has anyone ignored?
Trigonometry.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2014, 03:44:57 PM »
And what simple geometry has anyone ignored?
Trigonometry.
So what trigonometry has anyone ignored? Why don't you use quotes to make your case--unless, of course, you don't have one to make?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #53 on: December 29, 2014, 04:12:54 PM »
Why don't you use quotes to make your case--unless, of course, you don't have one to make?
I already have. I consider my job here to be done. Whether or not you'll learn from it is entirely up to you.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7741
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work
« Reply #54 on: December 29, 2014, 05:10:03 PM »
Why don't you use quotes to make your case--unless, of course, you don't have one to make?
I already have. I consider my job here to be done. Whether or not you'll learn from it is entirely up to you.
Come now PP, you know that us poor, ignorant RE'ers need to be spoon fed everything.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.