[AstralSentient]

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

[StinkyOne]

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

The moon is tidally locked with Earth. This means the time it takes to complete a revolution is the same amount of time it takes to complete one orbit of the Earth. As such, we always see the same side of the moon. Perspective is an optical illusion. Think of it like this, why do the Sun and moon look so large when they are on the horizon? It is because the brain "thinks" things on the horizon are closer and they appear larger. It isn't reality, the Sun and moon are no larger. You can't trust what your senses tell you nearly as much as we like to think we can.

[Ga_x2]

[...]The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.[...]

Actually, afaik you can never see the stars as circular. They always appear as dots, no matter the magnification... they are too far away for any telescope to resolve that much.

[Curious Squirrel]

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

The last time this was brought up it was 'explained' away as being due to perspective at large distances because "The ancient Greeks didn't study perspective at long distances" so we "don't know what it does" at those distances.

[AstralSentient]

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

The moon is tidally locked with Earth. This means the time it takes to complete a revolution is the same amount of time it takes to complete one orbit of the Earth. As such, we always see the same side of the moon. Perspective is an optical illusion. Think of it like this, why do the Sun and moon look so large when they are on the horizon? It is because the brain "thinks" things on the horizon are closer and they appear larger. It isn't reality, the Sun and moon are no larger. You can't trust what your senses tell you nearly as much as we like to think we can.

Yes, I understand that it is, but on a flat Earth, with the moon moving above the Earth, perpendicular to it, as it furthers away, we will view it at a different angle. So, we would see a different part of it and different phase as it furthers away, assuming it was a sphere in this case. The star trails around Polaris as we move south would not appear like they are above us, but would appear more elliptical because of our angle of view.
This illustrates what I mean:

So:
1. Why do we always see the same side of the moon across Earth even as it furthers away and converges with the horizon?
2. Why do star trails always appear like they are facing us directly? Almost like they are tilting to our perception as we move away.

[AstralSentient]

[...]The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.[...]

Actually, afaik you can never see the stars as circular. They always appear as dots, no matter the magnification... they are too far away for any telescope to resolve that much.

I meant star trails, yeah, should have been more clear on that one.

[Curious Squirrel]

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

The moon is tidally locked with Earth. This means the time it takes to complete a revolution is the same amount of time it takes to complete one orbit of the Earth. As such, we always see the same side of the moon. Perspective is an optical illusion. Think of it like this, why do the Sun and moon look so large when they are on the horizon? It is because the brain "thinks" things on the horizon are closer and they appear larger. It isn't reality, the Sun and moon are no larger. You can't trust what your senses tell you nearly as much as we like to think we can.

Yes, I understand that it is, but on a flat Earth, with the moon moving above the Earth, perpendicular to it, as it furthers away, we will view it at a different angle. So, we would see a different part of it and different phase as it furthers away, assuming it was a sphere in this case. The star trails around Polaris as we move south would not appear like they are above us, but would appear more elliptical because of our angle of view.
This illustrates what I mean:

So:
1. Why do we always see the same side of the moon across Earth even as it furthers away and converges with the horizon?
2. Why do star trails always appear like they are facing us directly? Almost like they are tilting to our perception as we move away.

1) Perspective at long distances. Don't know the mechanisms involved, but that's the answer that comes up when this question is asked.
2) Not sure I understand the question. Could you give it another shot, maybe word it a little differently? Sorry. My first off-hand guess is it's a perspective effect again, at least according to the FE hypothesis.

You'll find perspective thrown about in answer to a lot of the visual curiosities. I still don't understand why they think it functions so differently, nor have I gotten any kind of reply when pointing out perspective can't change where something actually is.

[AstralSentient]

1) Perspective at long distances. Don't know the mechanisms involved, but that's the answer that comes up when this question is asked.
2) Not sure I understand the question. Could you give it another shot, maybe word it a little differently? Sorry. My first off-hand guess is it's a perspective effect again, at least according to the FE hypothesis.

You'll find perspective thrown about in answer to a lot of the visual curiosities. I still don't understand why they think it functions so differently, nor have I gotten any kind of reply when pointing out perspective can't change where something actually is.

Well, celestial perspective would differ from basic perspective here on Earth in these models essentially because the celestial bodies are much higher up. Assuming a finite point of convergence, such high objects will descend into the ground at a 45 degree angle in a "isosceles right triangle" fashion, so, the stars, sun, and moon will descend at a constant rate and won't slow down as it approaches the horizon. That is a common view of perspective among planarists, but, to try to explain this as a distinctive part of celestial perspective as well doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe, I guess, it could be thought of as the moon descending into the horizon before it gets to an angle so that we see a different side of it (so, basically, the moon can never be at such an angle so you can see a different part of it because you can't see it at such a hypothetical angle, it would be past your perspective lines and therefore below the horizon), but, I would assume any movement far out would have some difference in what we see with the moon.

As for #2, if you are at the north pole looking up, the stars will appear to circle above you, but as you move away, your angle of view changes and therefore you will view it from the side and it won't be as if its directly above you. However, we observe that the stars always appear the same as they do when you are looking up at the north pole, lining up with your eyes and facing you. That means it would have to 'tilt' with you as you walk away to maintain the same appearance of it directly facing you.

Star trails facing you:

Those stars don't look like they are circling above the pole, but are circling while pointing to you.
Does celestial perspective do that?

[3DGeek]

1. Why do we always see the same side of the moon across Earth even as it furthers away and converges with the horizon?

Tom claims that this is because the moon is a flat disc, laying parallel to the surface of the (flat) Earth.

His poor three-dimensional visualization skills lead him to think that this solves the problem...but now he has a moon that would look elliptical...so he's still screwed on that one.

Other people just punt and say "It's a hologram"...or "It's a hologram projected by NASA"...thereby demonstrating (a) a complete lack of understanding about how holograms work (I blame StarWars!) - and (b) a failure to understand that NASA has only been around since 1958 and we have good evidence that people saw the moon a solid 6,000 years ago!

FET cannot explain:

* The "rotation" of the moon at different latitudes.
* The phases of the moon.
* Lunar eclipses.
* Shadows cast across the moon by its mountains and crater rims (Hey guys: Get a decent pair of binoculars and look at the 1/4 moon someday!)
* The TWO tides per day that the moon produces.
* That astronauts went there, walked around on it and brought bits of it back.   (When the flooding recedes, you can visit the NASA space center in Houston and actually TOUCH a piece of moon rock!)
* How the moon sets like the sun.
* Why the moon glows in the first place (the 'flashlight' sun can't illuminate it, that's for sure).
* Why the moon stays the same apparent size no matter how far away it is.

...and I'm sure many more.

The Moon in all of it's aspects is a HUGE problem for FE'ers to explain...mostly they just stop talking on the threads where it's being discussed.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom claims that this is because the moon is a flat disc, laying parallel to the surface of the (flat) Earth.

Incorrect. Please stop making things up.

[Tom Bishop]

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

The moon is tidally locked with Earth. This means the time it takes to complete a revolution is the same amount of time it takes to complete one orbit of the Earth. As such, we always see the same side of the moon. Perspective is an optical illusion. Think of it like this, why do the Sun and moon look so large when they are on the horizon? It is because the brain "thinks" things on the horizon are closer and they appear larger. It isn't reality, the Sun and moon are no larger. You can't trust what your senses tell you nearly as much as we like to think we can.

Yes, I understand that it is, but on a flat Earth, with the moon moving above the Earth, perpendicular to it, as it furthers away, we will view it at a different angle. So, we would see a different part of it and different phase as it furthers away, assuming it was a sphere in this case. The star trails around Polaris as we move south would not appear like they are above us, but would appear more elliptical because of our angle of view.
This illustrates what I mean:

So:
1. Why do we always see the same side of the moon across Earth even as it furthers away and converges with the horizon?
2. Why do star trails always appear like they are facing us directly? Almost like they are tilting to our perception as we move away.

The answer is that perspective as imagined by the Ancient Greeks is wrong.

[Curious Squirrel]

Tom claims that this is because the moon is a flat disc, laying parallel to the surface of the (flat) Earth.

Incorrect. Please stop making things up.

You've certainly suggested as such before in another thread. I recall it as well, although I can't recall which one it was.

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

The moon is tidally locked with Earth. This means the time it takes to complete a revolution is the same amount of time it takes to complete one orbit of the Earth. As such, we always see the same side of the moon. Perspective is an optical illusion. Think of it like this, why do the Sun and moon look so large when they are on the horizon? It is because the brain "thinks" things on the horizon are closer and they appear larger. It isn't reality, the Sun and moon are no larger. You can't trust what your senses tell you nearly as much as we like to think we can.

Yes, I understand that it is, but on a flat Earth, with the moon moving above the Earth, perpendicular to it, as it furthers away, we will view it at a different angle. So, we would see a different part of it and different phase as it furthers away, assuming it was a sphere in this case. The star trails around Polaris as we move south would not appear like they are above us, but would appear more elliptical because of our angle of view.
This illustrates what I mean:

So:
1. Why do we always see the same side of the moon across Earth even as it furthers away and converges with the horizon?
2. Why do star trails always appear like they are facing us directly? Almost like they are tilting to our perception as we move away.

The answer is that perspective as imagined by the Ancient Greeks is wrong.

How is it wrong, and how do you know it's wrong? It works just fine on a round Earth. Please state what's wrong with it, and provide evidence showing it's incorrect. As a note: The horizon is not evidence, as that depends entirely upon if you believe the Earth is in actuality flat, or round. Experiments or studies only please.

[Tom Bishop]

How is it wrong, and how do you know it's wrong? It works just fine on a round Earth. Please state what's wrong with it, and provide evidence showing it's incorrect. As a note: The horizon is not evidence, as that depends entirely upon if you believe the Earth is in actuality flat, or round. Experiments or studies only please.

It's not so much that I have to provide evidence that it is incorrect, so much as the claimants need to provide evidence that it is correct. According to most tenets of empiricism a theory is considered wrong until demonstrated right. There is no evidence that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, despite appearing to do so at the vanishing point. No evidence for that has ever been provided. Therefore, wrong.

[Curious Squirrel]

How is it wrong, and how do you know it's wrong? It works just fine on a round Earth. Please state what's wrong with it, and provide evidence showing it's incorrect. As a note: The horizon is not evidence, as that depends entirely upon if you believe the Earth is in actuality flat, or round. Experiments or studies only please.

It's not so much that I have to provide evidence that it is incorrect, so much as the claimants need to provide evidence that it is correct. According to most tenets of empiricism a theory is considered wrong until demonstrated right. There is no evidence that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, despite appearing to do so at the vanishing point. No evidence for that has ever been provided. Therefore, wrong.

Well perspective lines (as you've pointed out) aren't parallel, even if they are parallel lines in real life. So I'm not seeing what that has to do with anything. As well the 'vanishing point' is regarded differently by both RE and FE, and can't be used as evidence for either scenario, which is why I specifically called it out above. The math says and shows that they will not meet before infinity, and they certainly won't be able to 'cross' each other. That's the evidence provided. Just because you reject it for your own reality, doesn't make it any less evidence. Once again, perspective might be able to explain the setting sun, but you cannot have sunlight coming in at an angle less than 8.5 degrees (15 according to distances I've seen presented for size of FE) so long as light travels in a straight line on a FE.

[Tom Bishop]

How is it wrong, and how do you know it's wrong? It works just fine on a round Earth. Please state what's wrong with it, and provide evidence showing it's incorrect. As a note: The horizon is not evidence, as that depends entirely upon if you believe the Earth is in actuality flat, or round. Experiments or studies only please.

It's not so much that I have to provide evidence that it is incorrect, so much as the claimants need to provide evidence that it is correct. According to most tenets of empiricism a theory is considered wrong until demonstrated right. There is no evidence that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, despite appearing to do so at the vanishing point. No evidence for that has ever been provided. Therefore, wrong.

Well perspective lines (as you've pointed out) aren't parallel, even if they are parallel lines in real life. So I'm not seeing what that has to do with anything. As well the 'vanishing point' is regarded differently by both RE and FE, and can't be used as evidence for either scenario, which is why I specifically called it out above. The math says and shows that they will not meet before infinity, and they certainly won't be able to 'cross' each other. That's the evidence provided. Just because you reject it for your own reality, doesn't make it any less evidence. Once again, perspective might be able to explain the setting sun, but you cannot have sunlight coming in at an angle less than 8.5 degrees (15 according to distances I've seen presented for size of FE) so long as light travels in a straight line on a FE.

"According to this math... according to this interpretation... the lines should approach each other for infinity" "Are you even listening to yourself? None of that is rooted in reality, only theory.

[Curious Squirrel]

How is it wrong, and how do you know it's wrong? It works just fine on a round Earth. Please state what's wrong with it, and provide evidence showing it's incorrect. As a note: The horizon is not evidence, as that depends entirely upon if you believe the Earth is in actuality flat, or round. Experiments or studies only please.

It's not so much that I have to provide evidence that it is incorrect, so much as the claimants need to provide evidence that it is correct. According to most tenets of empiricism a theory is considered wrong until demonstrated right. There is no evidence that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, despite appearing to do so at the vanishing point. No evidence for that has ever been provided. Therefore, wrong.

Well perspective lines (as you've pointed out) aren't parallel, even if they are parallel lines in real life. So I'm not seeing what that has to do with anything. As well the 'vanishing point' is regarded differently by both RE and FE, and can't be used as evidence for either scenario, which is why I specifically called it out above. The math says and shows that they will not meet before infinity, and they certainly won't be able to 'cross' each other. That's the evidence provided. Just because you reject it for your own reality, doesn't make it any less evidence. Once again, perspective might be able to explain the setting sun, but you cannot have sunlight coming in at an angle less than 8.5 degrees (15 according to distances I've seen presented for size of FE) so long as light travels in a straight line on a FE.

"According to this math... according to this interpretation... the lines should approach each other for infinity" "Are you even listening to yourself? None of that is rooted in reality, only theory.

And your claim is based on the Earth being flat for it to work, not to mention you still need to account for the actual angle of the sun compared to where you claim to see it. I would readily argue your rejection of the math isn't based in reality either, but what you want to be true.

[3DGeek]

Tom claims that this is because the moon is a flat disc, laying parallel to the surface of the (flat) Earth.

Incorrect. Please stop making things up.

Well, in the thread that was unhelpfully entitled "Why?" - we were discussing how the moon appears to be upside down in Australia.  In your explanation, you said:

- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?

This is explained in the Wiki. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

That only works (well, kinda works) if the moon is a flat disk.  If you believe that the moon is not a flat disk, parallel to the ground then your explanation there was nonsense.  (OK - maybe that's the reason!)

You can't have it both ways.  Pick one and stick to it!