If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
"The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."
"The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole."
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
Here's a cross-section of flat earth with sun and moon 3000 miles (or so) above the earth's surface:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/29lodmx.jpg)
Fix the diagram or move the moon to where it would be so that its "bottom" is fully illuminated by the sun resulting in a full moon visible from earth.
In that video, aren't they showing a full moon in the north at the same time as a new moon in the south? Is this the pro-FE explanation?Here's a cross-section of flat earth with sun and moon 3000 miles (or so) above the earth's surface:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/29lodmx.jpg)
Fix the diagram or move the moon to where it would be so that its "bottom" is fully illuminated by the sun resulting in a full moon visible from earth.
Bobby,
I've done research on this.
This is a circular, ice wall, no dome flat earth model. In this model the full moon is determined based on how close you are to the middle of the circle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKvw1LHIbc
Here's a cross-section of flat earth with sun and moon 3000 miles (or so) above the earth's surface:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/29lodmx.jpg)
Fix the diagram or move the moon to where it would be so that its "bottom" is fully illuminated by the sun resulting in a full moon visible from earth.
Bobby,
I've done research on this.
This is a circular, ice wall, no dome flat earth model. In this model the full moon is determined based on how close you are to the middle of the circle.
In that video, aren't they showing a full moon in the north at the same time as a new moon in the south?
Is this the pro-FE explanation?
No offense, but I'd like to avoid a "but Tom said" discussion with others. This is a public board and topic, of course, but I posted this in response to Tom, who asked that I move it out of the other topic and into a new one.
So, while I appreciate you globe-ists wanting to chime in, this is mainly for Tom, OR whoever endorses/composed the current wiki pages on the moon.
How about this?
Combination of spotlight effect and upward curving of sunlight:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2ppnbix.jpg)
I believe you have answered this question yourself...the light from the sun is curving upwards to shine on the moon allowing a spotlight sun and an illuminated moonNo. I don't want my answer. Nor an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink devil's advocate answer. I'm asking for an integregated, internally consistent answer given the unambiguous declarations in the wiki, to which Tom avers.
Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you.
Can you please repost that in the Flat Earth Theory forum, or can we get a moderator split that. We can go over the Flat Earth perspective/electromagnetic accelerator explanations there, and maybe improve the Wiki article. I'm looking at ICanScienceThat's video that he made and would prefer to keep on this topic.
Can someone explain to me how shadows are cast from the moon onto the Earth and vice versa?Yes. Happy to. Although, I can explain it for RE only.
Open topic (of course) but directed toward Tom Bishop (who asked that this be split off to a separate topic).
In answering explanations for how a full moon is possible in the globe earth model, you (Tom) said:If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
I am? I don't even know what the "Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model" is. Is it what underlies the concept that "in order to see a full moon with 100% totality, you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on?"
That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof.
You are assuming that the sun is a literal spotlight...I do the best I can with the description FE has given me. If the spotlight nature of the sun isn't literal, what is it? A metaphor?
A full perspective theory is still in its infancy, but right now I will point you to the "Why do we se the same face of the moon" thread we had recently (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10013.0).Again with the Ancient Greek stuff. I'm trying to be zetetic here. I'm not assuming any Greek theory. Have you tried to model your Rubik's cube illustration. I have. It doesn't work. You're the self-claimed empiricist. Don't just say it works. Show it.
In the Flat Earth model, if the moon is above the altitude of the sun, the sun will see its underside. If the moon is below the altitude of the sun, the sun will see the top of the moon. Your idea of how the relation works in Ancient Greek Perspective Theory would need to be first demonstrated true, before we can say that perspective operates or scales in that manner.
An object suspended one foot above your head, that recedes into the distance, will rotate to perspective quickly.....
For the moon to be full, it can't be out of alignment from the sun. Just like you argued for RE. The geometry based on the claimed form and magnitude "assumptions" of FE wiki make it impossible. If that's not true -- if it's possible -- show how. That's the point of this topic.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lGePi.png)Which lines are you referring to? The lines on the picture - which do converge - or the parallel lines they represent - which don't?
I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:You don't?
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lGePi.png)
Click to enlarge.
I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:
That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof
Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.
I am by no means a flat-earther but one big objection to that geometry is that no-one in the night area of the earth can see a full moon.
Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,
I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon. Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?
Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.
(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lGePi.png)
Click to enlarge.
I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?
Where on the surface of earth would a full moon be visible?
Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.
From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)
Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards
(https://i.imgur.com/ynDTEDo.jpg)
I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.The problem with a self-lit moon has always been visible shadows cast by ranges of mountains upon the moon. How does your self illumination hypothesis account for those? I'd also love to hear about lunar eclipses if you care to share. Both are glaring issues that a self-illumination hypothesis needs to cover.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.
FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.
I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
Shadows are just that; shadows cast by imperfections, scraps of dull stone on the illuminated surface. They prevent some of the light reaching us, therefore we see greyer areas, increasingly obvious when viewed from the side and there's less light drowning them out.I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.The problem with a self-lit moon has always been visible shadows cast by ranges of mountains upon the moon. How does your self illumination hypothesis account for those? I'd also love to hear about lunar eclipses if you care to share. Both are glaring issues that a self-illumination hypothesis needs to cover.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.
FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.
I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
Self-luminous would answer the full moon challenge, but to account for the phases of the moon cycle (and eclipses if a "Shadow Object" isn't being replaced by an "Eclipsing Object"), the luminescence would have to be variable. Even a self-luminescent moon would have to be explained with keeping the same side facing toward the earth, so you can't use rotation to explain the changes in appearance. There'd need to be a mechanism to cause the "face" of the moon itself to go dark and light up in a cyclic pattern.No shadow object, lunar eclipses explained (vaguely, it draws on a lot of other topics at length that I don't feel like regurgitating, linked in sig) above.
I can't simulate phases, but I wonder if there's a way to make a practical model or use it to demonstrate whether or not a self-luminous mood matches what we observe?Wrap foil or something around it, block light from going out the back, have light only come out in a circle around the front. The foil should always be in contact with the surface of the faux-moon. The amount with which it curves is going to be the major sticking point, and the one thing that might prevent it working completely, but if you experiment a bit, gauge how much the foil would cover of the lit face, you should get a decent approximation. You can even simulate phases by turning it around; it just won't look completely accurate because you don't have 3-d objects to block light and cast shadows.
I explicitly said the same face is not facing the Earth, it rotates. This is a departure from RET.It's because you explicitly said that that I mentioned it; because it's not what we observe. The face (or underside if you prefer) is always the same and doesn't revolve or rotate away from observation points on earth. If that's going to be different in FET, then where's the observation to support it? It's one of the things we must agree on since we're seeing the same thing, whether we think we're on a flat earth or a curved one.
It does not look the same. Look at photos, look at the moon itself, not the RE model.I explicitly said the same face is not facing the Earth, it rotates. This is a departure from RET.It's because you explicitly said that that I mentioned it; because it's not what we observe. The face (or underside if you prefer) is always the same and doesn't revolve or rotate away from observation points on earth. If that's going to be different in FET, then where's the observation to support it? It's one of the things we must agree on since we're seeing the same thing, whether we think we're on a flat earth or a curved one.
On the left, your crescent moon rotated counter clockwise to align with the orientation of your full moon, and then overlayed with the full moon:You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mmv3ur.jpg)
It's the same face. The portion of the crescent moon in darkness is still the same face, whether it's reflected light or self-luminescence. We just can't see it (though sometimes we can):When has that ever been observed?
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/208k9jc.jpg)
You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.I worked with what you provided, but those are the same Mares, whether fully illuminated or all that's visible in the crescent.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2f37b5ceec36f02bb21f2f182ae8ac19)
At best two of those lines are shared, and that's unreliable for the reasons I went into before. One is just outright not there, and two you could connect with those vague smudges but there's hardly enough detail visible to claim such a thing.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/208k9jc.jpg)When has that ever been observed?
I worked with what you provided, but those are the same Mares, whether fully illuminated or all that's visible in the crescent.You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific. Your definition of aligning them is meaningless, you are just overlaying them and using the features that only exist when you do so as evidence that they're the same. By that logic the moon could be an eyeball.
You will not find a crescent moon image or take one yourself that will show a set of features that can't be aligned with the full moon.
You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full.And I'll be able to point out just as many features that aren't shared, as I've done. What you're providing is a mix of confirmation bias, associating spots that would appear in either case, and circular reasoning.
When this photo was taken, for one. I can attest to seeing that.I can never recall seeing any such thing in all my life. It is overcast where I am too, but I do have a memory.
In fact, now would be a good time for it, either just before sunrise or a little after sunset wherever you are. If I can, I'll grab a photo of the moon tonight after sunset and we can see if the crescent moon's unlit portion is dimly visible. My skies are partly overcast right now, but I might have enough clearing to find the moon when this phenomenon is likely. Take a look yourself wherever you are (either tonight if the sun hasn't set yet or in the morning before sunrise if it's already nighttime where you are).
It does not look the same. Look at photos, look at the moon itself, not the RE model.Just so I understand, are you saying that the different images are not images of the same features, and therefore not of the same places on the moon? In other words, is it a bit like seeing different images of the earth from different angles, and confusing England with Japan?
You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mmv3ur.jpg)You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.
Just so I understand, are you saying that the different images are not images of the same features, and therefore not of the same places on the moon? In other words, is it a bit like seeing different images of the earth from different angles, and confusing England with Japan?Some of the features are the same; if you draw on a circle and rotate it away, you will still see those features. This isn't like the model of a rotating Earth because it is a singular basically flat face that's visible, and rotating away, hence the change of shape. But yes, in general they're not the same locations, and they don't look it.
I didn't understand the bit about Kermit the Frog. Why would we confuse the moon with a frog?
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mmv3ur.jpg)You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.
Hahaha. JRowe sees two picture of the same object in different conditions and can't detect the similarities. The crescent moon picture was taken with higher resolution than the other and therefore shows more detail, but JRowe believes that the "coarseness at the edge of the underside" means that the moon shows different faces at different times.
To top it off, when a helpful person rotates the image and draws lines to make the matching feature obvious, JRowe calls foul with the typical flat-earth you used CGI on the image. Classic!
JRowe, if you can't understand that the side of the Moon facing Earth is always the same, you're not going to generate credibility for your other viewpoints. Especially when you show us a picture of them looking the same and then claim louder that they are different.
You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific.
I disagree, but okay. I think your self-luminescence theory has more plausibility if you accept that the moon keeps its same face toward the earth, but if you feel it must rotate for your theory to hold water, then good luck.
I'm willing to consider self-luminous moon but not if it requires a rotating moon (with respect to earth) because I don't see it. Call it confirmation bias if you think that's what it is.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/s2gm6x.jpg)
That's always an issue with REers. I've noticed it constantly, the adamant belief that an observation may have only one explanation.
Add all the labels you want, those features do not look the same on a full moon, as pointed out. You get a few similarities, sure, because you are still looking at the same face, but everything about them does change. Size, shape... This is true even under your model. Take a mountain; on a full moon that'd barely be noticable, on a more crescent moon it'd have become a black triangle.
RET itself is based on the idea that it isn't going to look the same. Proceeding to claim that it does is headscratching at the very least.
I pointed out that he literally overlaid the full moon onto the crescent moon. He is drawing lines from an image of the full moon to an image of the full moon, why are you attaching significance to the fact that they match? What is it you imagine he did?
Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help.
Why are you acting as though this is evidence?!
With overlay (top)You do realise two of those lines are connecting to an utter lack of features on the crescent, one is connecting to a very different looking feature, and two to contorted shapes right?
Without overlay (bottom)
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/121u63r.jpg)
Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help. It's no skin off my back if you insist the moon isn't always presenting its same face toward earth. I wasn't even addressing self-luminescence in this topic. I'm addressing what the TFES.org wiki states.i didn't say it was a trick, it's an instance of circular thinking; it's the model that you're used to so it's the one you expect to see, but look at the lines you are actually drawing. You've connected a blank spot on the crescent with a feature on the full moon, and ambiguous smudges with defined shapes. You're seeing what you want to see.
I have no problem with you changing the tact of this topic, but I'm not going to spend time trying to persuade you that you're seeing the same face of the moon when it's gone to crescent. If that's crucial to the non-Wiki self-luminescence theory you are promoting, maybe generate a new topic on the subject? I'm going to stick with the reflective moon/same face notion.
Good luck.
Because it is evidence. When you overlay the images and the features line up, it is evidence. Now that he has shown it without the overlay, can you see it?Except for the fact that, yet again, those features don't exist. Look at the actual image aready.
Here is an image of the full moon with enough resolution to include "coarseness"Which bears no resemblance to the speckled, coarse border i drew attention to in the crescent, what's your point? What did you think i was talking about?!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/FullMoon2010.jpg)
JRowe, I have two things to say to you
Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day
If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
JRowe, I have two things to say to you1. What does that have to do with the moon?
Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day
If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
JRowe's theory can't tolerate that so he will not concede that the features we point out are, in fact, the same features on a fully illuminated moon.Because they are absolutely, unambiguously not. Let's snip away the rest of the image, let's look just at the features you pointed out as meant to be similar without worrying about your mind playing tricks because you expect them to be the same. From your image, the lines you drew. You're welcome to do the same.
JRowe, I have two things to say to you1. What does that have to do with the moon?
Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day
If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
Sunrise/sunset occurs on the terminator line on both Earth and Moon. No?
2. Depends on the season.
The time would change, but it would always be sunrise or sunset time, wouldn't it?
Really have no idea where you're planning to go with this.
JRowe, I have two things to say to you1. What does that have to do with the moon?
Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day
If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
Sunrise/sunset occurs on the terminator line on both Earth and Moon. No?
2. Depends on the season.
The time would change, but it would always be sunrise or sunset time, wouldn't it?
Really have no idea where you're planning to go with this.
See above.
On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10056.msg158077#msg158077On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?
You guys are missing JRowe's contention. The moon is lit not by the sun. It issues its own light. That's why he's having difficulty accepting that the features he calls "course" in one image or the same that don't look coarse in another. There are shadows on crater walls in the crescent moon photo. But in the full moon, those shadows are missing. We know that's because the sun's angle is causing the shadows (or lack thereof). JRowe insists these aren't the same surface features because the moon has rotated.On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?
Because they are absolutely, unambiguously not. Let's snip away the rest of the image, let's look just at the features you pointed out as meant to be similar without worrying about your mind playing tricks because you expect them to be the same. From your image, the lines you drew. You're welcome to do the same.
(https://i.imgur.com/tGV1yEl.png)
How can it reasonably be concluded that these are somehow the same features? RET says they are because that is what the model wants, not because it is what is observed, and i urge you to look at the actual observations here.
The first is a completely different shape, there's nothing to even compare on the second, the third you could maybe argue for inasmuch as 'oh, something's there' but not much more, and the fourth and fifth to finish off have nothing whatsoever in common.
You have a few similarities on the large scale, yes, because features that had been on the right of the moon would seem closer to the left as it turns (see the circle and dot illustration i used earlier), but they are far too twisted and contorted to believe that you are looking at the same features from the same perspective, when they are even there at all.
When expectation is taken out of the picture, can you honestly say to me that it looks like they're the same?
When snipped out of context, and to the boundary limits you chose, I would be hard pressed to identify any but the 1st and 3rd ones.I chose the boundaries to fully encompass the features in question. Yes, it is snipped of context, but only so more than pattern recognition is at play.
But the first one is clearly the Sea of Serenity in either picture. It has that distinctive "horn" that faces to the NE with the crater Posidonius in its lower crook.
Here's a quick collage I assemble of pics picked off the Web of the Mare from different aspects and on moons at different phases, some of which I annotated to point out the distinctive crater.To tackle this in rows:
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2pplnk9.jpg)
I understand the concept of confirmation bias and human nature to try to force patterns into where there are none, to try to fit a mold. I know that can happen, and I try to guard against it. But I'm afraid you will find yourself in the extreme minority of those who don't see and recognize that the same side of the moon faces the earth regardless of phase. You should consider that maybe -- just MAYBE -- you are rejecting the identification of moon features for confirmation bias reasons, in order to bolster your self-luminescence theory.I am in the extreme minority as far as what shape I think the Earth is too. I'm used to it. I have refined my theory of the Earth's shape and how it works many times over before it reached the current point, and I was happy to do so; I had no emotional connection to any tenet, and self-luminescence was the option that made the most sense. There are too many discrepancies for the idea that it is the same place to be scientifically held, in my mind, and I reached that conclusion by trying to disprove it. I did not reach this conclusion by trying to make it work; I have been willing to discard multiple aspects of my model as it developed.
Self-luminescence is already far-fetchedWhy? I have already gone over the mechanism.
And just for the record, I think I've been polite to you. I haven't disparaged your theory or you at all. I think you will have better luck persuading other if you don't disparage them like you've tried with me. My ego isn't threatened by it, so it doesn't bother me if you think I'm a loon or blind or ignorant. But you won't convince many people that way. Just sayin'.Apologies if anything I've said to you has come across as disparaging, none of it was intended, and especially not directed at you. (I mostly spent time on the other site so it's refreshing to be able to have a good discussion and this is one of the best I've had, I absolutely do not intend to jeopardize that).
I model it so:
Why? When multiple countries have sent orbital craft around it, when some have mapped and photographed the far side as well as nearside, why would you model it like this?
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
Inconsistent with experimental results from the surface, though.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
As far as whether or not the moon revolves such that we see different sides during its phases, I'll take it as a challenge to provide a photograph of a non-full moon in which the dark portion is dimly lit and visible. I checked this morning, but though the sky was clear it was already too bright. I've seen it and I can find online examples of the phenomenon, but I'd rather capture it myself.Just for a point of clarification, as it seems as though there may be some misunderstanding here, it is not so much seeing different sides during its phases, but rather seeing the one side from different angles. Only one face of the moon emits light (reasons gone into previously), so it is the features on that which are observed. Yes, other sides rotate into view, but we don't see them; they're unlit, hence causing the phases.
So, is the entirety of the discussion restricted to these two images?Bring in whatever images you want, Bobby did. I just picked up two of the top results when I typed 'full' and 'crescent' moon into google as an illustration. Yes, there are plenty of images out there, I've seen them and I stand by what I've said.
Astronomers have observed and photographed the Moon far more extensively. You can buy any number of Lunar Atlases over the counter or from your favourite South-American-river-themed online retailer.
Honestly, I don't see how, with so much information out there, how there can be any dispute over which feature is which.
We can show that the sun is causing the illumination of the Moon by going out in the day, when the Moon is visible, and holding up any kind of sports ball or similar in front of the Moon.What? You're going to get a different pattern on the ball depending on whether it's noon, sunrise or sunset but I don't think anyone, RE or FE, is going to claim moon phase changes daily.
The illumination pattern on the Moon is reflected exactly in the illumination pattern on the ball
https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7 (https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7)
https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L (https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L)
So, if the Moon is its own source of illumination, it's lighting itself to match not only the pattern that indicates it is being illuminate by the sun, but also the pattern cast on any other spherical object in sunlight. Quite a feat, or quite a coincidence.
And if space travel were real you might have a point.I model it so:
Why? When multiple countries have sent orbital craft around it, when some have mapped and photographed the far side as well as nearside, why would you model it like this?
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
Inconsistent with experimental results from the surface, though.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
Inconsistent with physical observation and the actuality of manned and unmanned lunar orbital missions. See the most recent, a joint Chinese/Saudi Arabian mission;
(http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/14/137253874_15290204777411n.jpg)
I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.
FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.
I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
(https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA1MC8xNjQvb3JpZ2luYWwvTW9vbkVhcnRoc2hpbmVDaHVtYWNrLmpwZw==) The crescent moon lit up by earthshine was captured by astrophotographer John Chumack on Sept. 8, 2015. Credit: John Chumack | www.galacticimages.com (http://www.galacticimages.com) |
This does clarify a bit a misunderstanding I was under, but it raises different questions that I'd rather not belabor. Why don't we move this to a new Flat Earth Theory discussion topic and start fresh? I can do it, but I don't want to appear to be framing the discussion as a flat earth vs. round earth debate. I'd prefer to approach it as a germ for discussion for both flat and round earth advocates to critique or evaluate. I'll present any further challenges there, and I think I can do so using "zetetic" methods vice relying on a presumption of defending either a round or flat earth model. (I hope.)As far as whether or not the moon revolves such that we see different sides during its phases, I'll take it as a challenge to provide a photograph of a non-full moon in which the dark portion is dimly lit and visible. I checked this morning, but though the sky was clear it was already too bright. I've seen it and I can find online examples of the phenomenon, but I'd rather capture it myself.Just for a point of clarification, as it seems as though there may be some misunderstanding here, it is not so much seeing different sides during its phases, but rather seeing the one side from different angles. Only one face of the moon emits light (reasons gone into previously), so it is the features on that which are observed. Yes, other sides rotate into view, but we don't see them; they're unlit, hence causing the phases.
Just making sure that's clear.
We can show that the sun is causing the illumination of the Moon by going out in the day, when the Moon is visible, and holding up any kind of sports ball or similar in front of the Moon.What? You're going to get a different pattern on the ball depending on whether it's noon, sunrise or sunset but I don't think anyone, RE or FE, is going to claim moon phase changes daily.
The illumination pattern on the Moon is reflected exactly in the illumination pattern on the ball
(Links to images above)
So, if the Moon is its own source of illumination, it's lighting itself to match not only the pattern that indicates it is being illuminate by the sun, but also the pattern cast on any other spherical object in sunlight. Quite a feat, or quite a coincidence.
I didn't say the phase would change daily. I said that if you have both sun and moon in the daytime sky, and perform the above, the sun/shade pattern on your ball always matches the phase of the Moon at the time you do this. I said nothing about the phase changing within the day.
And if space travel were real you might have a point.
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
This does clarify a bit a misunderstanding I was under, but it raises different questions that I'd rather not belabor. Why don't we move this to a new Flat Earth Theory discussion topic and start fresh? I can do it, but I don't want to appear to be framing the discussion as a flat earth vs. round earth debate. I'd prefer to approach it as a germ for discussion for both flat and round earth advocates to critique or evaluate. I'll present any further challenges there, and I think I can do so using "zetetic" methods vice relying on a presumption of defending either a round or flat earth model. (I hope.)Happy to, though I will still reply when people respond to me here. Make whatever threads you want and let me know, I'll be happy to join them.
The challenge to a full moon possibility proposed in this topic assumes a reflected light moon and not a moon emanating its own light.
That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.
I didn't say the phase would change daily. I said that if you have both sun and moon in the daytime sky, and perform the above, the sun/shade pattern on your ball always matches the phase of the Moon at the time you do this. I said nothing about the phase changing within the day.Read my post. The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.
Really? You expect everyone to regard that as a cogent argument against the accumulated evidence from some 130 separate missions to and around the Moon from at least four different countries?Sure, if you were going to put in the effort to say why. FEers (and soem REer for that matter) have dedicated plenty of time to showing why everything from the motive to the consequences of space travel is suspect.
You get to dodge the evidence with "Space travel isn't real" ???
Do we get to respond with "superheated cylinders don't exist in space" ??A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.
Well, I and many others have. Just do an internet search on "photos moon lit by earthshine" - some matches just illustrations and drawings but there are many of the "moon lit by earthshine".That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.
Crescent moon with earthshineAnd this site has High Dynamic Range photo, HDR Crescent Moon With Earthshine (http://www.astropix.com/html/planetary/hdr_crescent_moon_earthshine.html).Here’s the moon on December 1, a waxing crescent moon in the evening sky. You’ll see a moon much like this, but with an increasingly fatter crescent, in the coming evenings. Abhijit Juvekar, who captured and labeled this photo, wrote: The bright area is direct sunlight falling on moon while the faint area is called ‘earthshine.’
(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2013/12/moon-earthshine-Abhijit-Juvekar-12-1-2013.jpg)
EarthSky Facebook friend Abhijit Juvekar captured this crescent moon with earthshine on December 1, 2013.
Thank you, Abhijit!
Earthshine is also sunlight, reflected from the Earth and falling back onto the moon’s surface.
Image shot using Canon EOS 550D with Sigma 70-300mm Lens.
Place – Lonavala, India.
1 Dec 2013
Thank you, Abhijit!
From: EarthSky, Crescent moon with earthshine, By Deborah Byrd in Today's Image | December 4, 2013 (http://earthsky.org/todays-image/crescent-moon-with-earthshine)
Sure, if you were going to put in the effort to say why.
Your superheated cylinder theory is contradicted by the real-world data, experiences and observations of almost 50 years of sending craft to and around the Moon.
Much of the data is summarised in The Lunar Sourcebook -https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/ (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/)
Missions are summarised on wikipedia and other places. Photos, anecdotes, etc are a google search away, or in a library.
I could fill page upon page with a continuation of the above.
FEers (and soem REer for that matter) have dedicated plenty of time to showing why everything from the motive to the consequences of space travel is suspect.
No, you haven't done that, this whole line of inquiry is ludicrous. The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun. Are you kidding me?! Seriously, what the actual thork are you talking about?The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.
Yes, the angle of the sunlight on the Moon, as seen from Earth, will vary, but the phase of the moon will not noticeably change.
Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?
Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?
Do you take pleasure in completely ignoring every single question I ask you? This is the second thread.How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.Well, I and many others have.
Merely saying it's suspect is not a disproof of any of it. No space mission has ever reported seeing a superheated cylinder where our Moon is supposed to be. What evidence do you have of it, beyond your theory?I am not going to let you drag this topic to the conspiracy, it is a completely different subject. If there aren't other threads on it start one, but why space travel is faked is huge, detailed, and nothing to do with how the moon works.
No, you haven't done that, this whole line of inquiry is ludicrous. The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun. Are you kidding me?! Seriously, what the actual thork are you talking about?The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.
Yes, the angle of the sunlight on the Moon, as seen from Earth, will vary, but the phase of the moon will not noticeably change.
Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?
Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?
I don't think you are getting it.I get it, it's not complicated, it is still objectively rubbish. If you hold a ball up at sunrise the, say, left side of it will be lit. If you hold it up at sunset, the right side will then be lit. Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day. Am I seriously going to need to repeat this again? To say nothing of the only significant part of Tumeni's claim, that the 'pattern of illumination' rather than mere direction would match. Feel free to show me a ball illuminated like a full moon or a new moon at sunrise, noon and sunset.
1: Use any day where the sun shines and the moon is visible.
2: Hold a small ball in front of you in the direction of the moon (so that it is just in front or besides the moon for comparison)
3: Observe
Result: The small ball is exactly lit just like the moon, showing the same pattern of shadow as the moon.
I've done this myself aswell, and it ALWAYS shows this result.
I get it, it's not complicated, it is still objectively rubbish. If you hold a ball up at sunrise the, say, left side of it will be lit. If you hold it up at sunset, the right side will then be lit. Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day.
You won't see the Moon in the sky for the whole of this duration. You can only do this when the sun and moon are both in the sky.
Have you actually tried it, or are you insisting that it's "objectively rubbish" on how you think it will work?
To say nothing of the only significant part of Tumeni's claim, that the 'pattern of illumination' rather than mere direction would match. Feel free to show me a ball illuminated like a full moon or a new moon at sunrise, noon and sunset.
Nobody said you would be able to choose all times of the day to do this. You can only do it when sun and moon are both in the sky.
Yes, there is some correllation between the Sun and the moon (the same basic force is responsible for their movement, long story) but not to the degree you are proposing, and that experiment is nonsense.
I don't think you are getting it.I get it, it's not complicated, it is still objectively rubbish. If you hold a ball up at sunrise the, say, left side of it will be lit. If you hold it up at sunset, the right side will then be lit. Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day. Am I seriously going to need to repeat this again? To say nothing of the only significant part of Tumeni's claim, that the 'pattern of illumination' rather than mere direction would match. Feel free to show me a ball illuminated like a full moon or a new moon at sunrise, noon and sunset.
1: Use any day where the sun shines and the moon is visible.
2: Hold a small ball in front of you in the direction of the moon (so that it is just in front or besides the moon for comparison)
3: Observe
Result: The small ball is exactly lit just like the moon, showing the same pattern of shadow as the moon.
I've done this myself aswell, and it ALWAYS shows this result.
Yes, there is some correllation between the Sun and the moon (the same basic force is responsible for their movement, long story) but not to the degree you are proposing, and that experiment is nonsense.
Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?No, you haven't done that
Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?
Yes, I have. See below for the pictures of me doing it.
The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun.
I assumed that the term "earthshine photos" would be enough explanation. I'll do a bit of copy-n-paste in the hopes of getting a better explanation than I could hope to give:Do you take pleasure in completely ignoring every single question I ask you? This is the second thread.How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.Well, I and many others have.
How. Does. That. Exist?
What Is Earthshine?And there are hundreds of photos of the moon lit partly by earthshine shown in a simple search on the internet, including this one taken during a total solar eclipse:
Earthshine is a dull glow which lights up the unlit part of the Moon because the Sun’s light reflects off the Earth's surface and back onto the Moon.
Why Does it Happen?
Earthshine occurs when sunlight reflects off the Earth's surface and illuminates the unlit portion of the Moon’s surface.
Since the light that generates earthshine is reflected twice – once off the Earth’s surface and then off the Moon’s surface, this light is much dimmer than the lit portion of the Moon.
This phenomenon is called planetshine when it occurs on other planets' moons.
Ability to Reflect Sunlight
Earthshine's brightness is also affected by the Moon's albedo. Albedo is a measurement of how much sunlight a celestial object can reflect. It is measured on a scale, which ranges from 0 to 1. An object that has albedo of 0 does not reflect sunlight and is perfectly dark. A celestial object with an albedo of 1 reflects all of the Sun's rays that reach it.
The Moon has an average albedo of 0.12, while the Earth's average albedo is 0.3. This means that the Moon reflects about 12% of the sunlight that reaches it. The Earth on the other hand, reflects about 30% of all the sunlight that hit its surface. Because of this, the Earth, when seen from the Moon would look about a 100 times brighter than a full Moon that is seen from the Earth.
Best Times to See Earthshine
Earthshine is most apparent one to five days before and after a New Moon. The best time of the day to see it is after sunset or before sunrise.
Sun and Moon in your city (https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/go.php?type=astro)
From: timeanddate.com, What Is Earthshine? (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/earthshine.html)
(http://0e33611cb8e6da737d5c-e13b5a910e105e07f9070866adaae10b.r15.cf1.rackcdn.com/Alex-Barnedt1987A-Photography-Earthshine-Total-Eclipse--8-21-17_1503951664_lg.jpg) Total Solar Eclipse Earthshine Taken by Alex Barnedt/1987A Photography on August 21, 2017 @ Boysen Reservoir, Wyoming For details about how the photo was produced see: (http://spaceweathergallery.com/images/eclipsegallery_header_pixmap.jpg) Total Solar Eclipse Earthshine (http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=138481) |
Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day.
As for those photos, same point as I made to Rabinoz and to Bobby before, the moon does not look like that. I've seen gibbous, half, crescent, new, never lit-crescent-dimly-lit-gibbous.
(Bobby said ) "You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full."
And I'll be able to point out just as many features that aren't shared, as I've done.
I think he is just in denial.(Bobby said ) "You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full."
And I'll be able to point out just as many features that aren't shared, as I've done.
Sorry, but I see nowhere in this thread where you've pointed out specific non-shared features. I invite you to present other Moon photos and indicate these features.
The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun.Why would that happen? You don't understand the globe model very well.
Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day.
The side that is lit barely changes over the course of a day, but your orientation, or the orientation of any observer, does.
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:
This reply is about finite geometry. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof
This reply is about perspective. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.
He is complaining because he asks a question about flat earth models and gets 30 answers from people who either believe the earth is round or are undecided and the response from people who believe the earth is flat does nothing to help him understand a full moon.
Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,
I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon. Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?
Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.
From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)
Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards
(https://i.imgur.com/ynDTEDo.jpg)
Here's a demonstration of diurnal libration, showing the face of the moon moving slightly over 4 hours.I love this one over a 30 day period:
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/530699-parallax-libration-or-both/
Isn't there a way that we can disprove one of these?
Yes. Power up a spacecraft, and send it around or onto the Moon. Take photographs, perform other experiments upon it. Photograph the journey to and from.
Already done numerous times - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon
Why has no one other than me attempted to diagram where the moon is in relation to the sun during a full moon.
He's talking about a diagram of the full moon in relation to the sun over a flat earth.Why has no one other than me attempted to diagram where the moon is in relation to the sun during a full moon.
Apart from hundreds upon thousands of astronomers, who contributed their observations to thousands of textbooks?
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:
This reply is about finite geometry. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof
This reply is about perspective. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.
He is complaining because he asks a question about flat earth models and gets 30 answers from people who either believe the earth is round or are undecided and the response from people who believe the earth is flat does nothing to help him understand a full moon.
Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,
I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon. Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?
Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.
From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)
Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards
(https://i.imgur.com/ynDTEDo.jpg)
Can anyone help clear this up for me? And get back to the original post instead of debating if the moon rotates or not. The Wiki says that the moon is a higher altitude than the sun, the bendy light model says that the moon is a lower altitude than the sun and now there is a self lighting moon model. Isn't there a way that we can disprove one of these? I feel like so many different answers just makes things much more confusing.
should the self lit moon be added to the flat earth wiki? why is the bendy light model not at all represented on the flat earth wiki? Why has no one other than me attempted to diagram where the moon is in relation to the sun during a full moon.
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.
Show us. Diagram it.
I can't find a way to line the sun and moon up so that the side lit fully by the sun is fully seen from earth.
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.
Show us. Diagram it.
I can't find a way to line the sun and moon up so that the side lit fully by the sun is fully seen from earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/MPo9YsL.png)
Nowhere on the earth's surface of that diagram is the following satisfies: "...in order to see a full moon with 100% totality...you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on,"
It wouldn't be 100%.
I disagree. My diagram was very poor. Maybe this one will be more clear. There is no where on the black line in which you would see a dark part of the moon. The only parts of the moon which you would be able to see from that far away would be lit by the sun.
These diagrams baffle me. The full moon doesn't occur when the moon and the sun are both more-or-less directly above you at the same time. They happen when the moon and the sun are as far apart in the sky as they can possibly get.
It wouldn't be 100%.
The only place from which you could see 100% of the moon lit by the sun in that diagram would be from directly below the sun, and that's assuming you could penetrate the light of the sun and see through the sun itself.
This is the same sort of geometric objection to being able to see 100% full moon from round earth
But that applies to flat earth too. Even in the extreme shown in your diagram, in which the moon is many times the altitude of the sun, anyone who is off axis from that alignment will be off axis from seeing the 100% full moon. The arrangement of earth-sun-moon is just in a different order, but it's the same geometric dilemma.
You could probably come up with a theoretical distance for which a 32-mile wide moon can be above the sun such that you can find a spot on earth below the sun that is less than 0.52° off axis, but then that's going to be daytime for the observer. To be off axis and still on the night side of earth, and make that angle <0.52°, you're talking about a moon that's 500,000 - 600,000 miles higher than the sun. Really?
Speaking of which, I never saw a good waning crescent moon this time around that showed "earthlight" illumination of it's portion in shadow. Now, we're in the new moon phase, so I'll have to wait and start watching Friday or so just after sunset to see if I can catch it on the waxing crescent. JRowe said he'd never seen such the phenomenon.Here's a youtube video for you. Tracking the moon during moonrise... yesterday I think? Couple days ago anyway. He seriously over-exposes the shot, and you can see the Earth-shine side of the moon really well when he's doing that.
Yes. the altitude of the moon would have to be a MASSIVE distance above the sun. During a new moon the moon would have to be below the sun. Either the sun, moon, or both would have to make massive altitude changes in their orbits in the flat earth full moon caused by sunlight model that i'm able to visualize.
It's either that or the Moon creates its own light which is a totally different ball game that I've only ever just heard about in this thread.
It's my opinion that a full moon is possible on the round earth and one of the many flat earth models. I believe that the wiki is incorrect in it's hypothesis just like I believe that you are incorrect in yours.
Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks
A light perusing of the source material for those equations suggests they are derived from/using the RE Heliocentric model. But I'm not 100% on this, as the listed source is in fact more of a secondary source, that has created/condensed this information. They are under no requirement to say how the formula is derived in that page, when they list the source. While I can't say what would need to change to reflect a FE model, if what I'm reading is correct the original derivations are indeed dependent on a model.Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks
The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.
To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls
Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.
A light perusing of the source material for those equations suggests they are derived from/using the RE Heliocentric model. But I'm not 100% on this, as the listed source is in fact more of a secondary source, that has created/condensed this information. They are under no requirement to say how the formula is derived in that page, when they list the source. While I can't say what would need to change to reflect a FE model, if what I'm reading is correct the original derivations are indeed dependent on a model.Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks
The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.
To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls
Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.Really? He believed the moon is self-illuminating, that it produces "cold light" and that it's translucent?!
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.It's clear that it is being lit by a light source.
You DO get that Sun Rad Vector is a derived value right? Not an 'input' value? Also, that formulas and equations can be simplified/derived OUT of orbital mechanics in some (according to the book many actually) cases? Did you read the forward? It suggests quite clearly that the books numbers are derived based on orbital mechanics. Just because the formulas are simple seeming, does not mean they were simple to get to.A light perusing of the source material for those equations suggests they are derived from/using the RE Heliocentric model. But I'm not 100% on this, as the listed source is in fact more of a secondary source, that has created/condensed this information. They are under no requirement to say how the formula is derived in that page, when they list the source. While I can't say what would need to change to reflect a FE model, if what I'm reading is correct the original derivations are indeed dependent on a model.Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks
The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.
To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls
Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.
We can reverse engineer it. Find the columns that you think have something to do with the Round Earth model and put zeros into the fields and see what happens.
For instance:
O: Sun Rad Vector (AUs)
The default is 1.000001018.
Put 0 in those boxes and see what happens. It doesn't affect the predictions at all. I also tried 9.5 AUs. No effect. It gives the same result whether the calculator is operating under the assumption of 0 Astronomical Units or 9.5 Astronomical Units.
Looking at the equations shows that these are very simple formulas, and certainly not orbital mechanics.
According to the NOAA website the calculator is based on a book called Astronomical Algorithms (PDF) (http://edukacja.3bird.pl/download/fizyka/astronomia-jean-meeus-astronomical-algorithms.pdf) by Jean Meeus. Reading closely, the book admits that the algorithms are just using statistical (pattern-based) methods:
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.Really? He believed the moon is self-illuminating, that it produces "cold light" and that it's translucent?!
And this is someone whose writings you take seriously and base your beliefs on? Wow...
On the first of those, this is a photo I took of the moon with a relatively cheap camera
Even on that you can see the moon's features (which you can see with the naked eye) and you can see some of the bigger craters and the way shadows are cast by them.
It's clear that it is being lit by a light source.
I agree that this picture makes the moon appear that it is being lit by another light source. The problem with this is that i've also seen pictures which make the moon appear that it is producing it's own light. I'm less interested in what pictures can make the moon look like it is being lit by and more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.Me too! Let's science this thing!
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.Me too! Let's science this thing!
Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.
Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/moonthumb.jpg)
So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.
Any more we can come up with?
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe. A self-illuminating moon can be added as an alternative, sure. However, I am only one person, and there are not many people working on the Wiki.
The description in the Wiki uses the finite perspective ideas where the perspective lines do not extend infinitely as believed by the Ancient Greeks, and will instead meet a finite distance away, like railroad tracks appear to meet in a perspective scene. A rewrite is in order to explain it better.
See: Why we see the same side of the moon (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10013.0)
I'm less interested in what pictures can make the moon look like it is being lit by and more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theories.
I agreed that based on observations made on pictures that the it appears that the moon is lit by a light source outside of the moon. I've also agree based on similar observations made on pictures that the moon appears to be generating it's own light.I'm sorry I missed that. Could you tell me more about an observation that the moon appears to generate its own light? It was probably in this thread somewhere, but this thread is so wandering at this point. Please lay it out for me. We can collect it all up together.
One thing i struggle to understand in the self lit moon theory is how a new moon works.If the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.Me too! Let's science this thing!
Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.
Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. You can even see what looks like shadows being cast behind the craters onto the surface behind them.
I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.
So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.
Any more we can come up with?
I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.Me too! Let's science this thing!
Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.
Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. You can even see what looks like shadows being cast behind the craters onto the surface behind them.
I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.
So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.
Any more we can come up with?
I can also see the outline of the part of the moon I would consider "unlit". I also observe this frequently with the naked eye. If i'm "seeing" something doesn't the act of "seeing" mean that light is coming from the object and hitting my eye. I believe that observation would support the hypothesis that the moon is both being lit from an outside source and ALSO generating it's own light which is significantly dimmer than the outside source light.
Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?
I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?
Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?
I guess we could say that maybe God is playing a joke on us. He wants to trick us into thinking the world is round, so he makes it look like that. It's better than the shrimp thing.
Edit... one more I just remembered... The moon isn't a physical object at all but is some kind of projection/hologram/trick of the light.
If the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.
JRowe's observations let him to perceive that the moon is rotating which causes the phases of the moon.
The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?
When I frequently see the "unlit" side of the moon How can we test the following light paths to determine which answer is most accurate:
1. sun -> Earth -> moon -> eye
2. moon -> eye
3. sun -> something non earth celestial body -> moon -> eye
4. earth (in the form of light pollution) -> moon -> eye
6. Sun -> atmosphere -> moon ->eye
7. sun -> dome (in the dome FE model) ->moon -> eye
8. sun -> firmament (in the firmament FE model)-> moon -> eye
9. any combination of those listed above
I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?
I guess we could say that maybe God is playing a joke on us. He wants to trick us into thinking the world is round, so he makes it look like that. It's better than the shrimp thing.
Edit... one more I just remembered... The moon isn't a physical object at all but is some kind of projection/hologram/trick of the light.
How can we test these theories about bio-luminescence, some sort of light generating elements, some sort of light absorbing elements, hologram hypothesisIf the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.
I read that previously in this thread but our perceptions of the rotation of the moon differed greatly. When comparing pictures of the moon during different phases my observations let me to perceive that through the moon phases we are still, more or less, looking at the same side of the moon.
JRowe's observations let him to perceive that the moon is rotating which causes the phases of the moon.
How can we put these two conflicting hypothesis to a test?
The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
Maybe we could estimate the brightness of the dim side and calculate what we think the albedo of the Earth is. Maybe we could do a spectral analysis to see what frequencies of light we're seeing. Maybe that could help us determine where the light is coming from.
We could accept evidence from the Chinese space agency, the Russians, or the Americans. All 3 claim to have been there and taken photos. I guess those are out though.
Super open to other ideas.
I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.
So of the testable claims: "self-illuminated" vs "lit by the sun" I don't see any way around it. Unless somebody has any other evidence, all we have points to a clear winner. I think we should move on to looking at Tom's idea of bendy light.
Ok let's go through it again. As I understand it, JRowe argued that the features of the moon (craters, etc) are NOT all pointing at us in the same way while the lit crescent moves across that face. We took photos and compared them. It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us while the lit crescent moved over them. If there was something I missed, I'm happy to look at it again. Please present anything to contradict my conclusion. To be entirely honest, once that was shown and JRowe continued to insist that the features didn't line up, I stopped reading his argument. So it's entirely plausible that I've missed something. I'll admit fault and agree to look again if you have something.The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
Maybe we could estimate the brightness of the dim side and calculate what we think the albedo of the Earth is. Maybe we could do a spectral analysis to see what frequencies of light we're seeing. Maybe that could help us determine where the light is coming from.
We could accept evidence from the Chinese space agency, the Russians, or the Americans. All 3 claim to have been there and taken photos. I guess those are out though.
Super open to other ideas.
Someone could write a letter to someone who teaches an optics class, astronomy class, astrophysics class, etc. I'm sure they could come up with a home made experiment or test we could do to attempt to determine where the light from the "unlit" side of the moon is most likely originating from.I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.
Why did you dismiss his opinion? We tried comparing images and one some of the points he made i agreed. On most of the points he made I didn't agree. I have not dismissed his opinion. I am very curious about it.
I'm not trying to win any particular point. I want to remain carefully objective. I'm trying very hard to help the FE side come up with something viable.So of the testable claims: "self-illuminated" vs "lit by the sun" I don't see any way around it. Unless somebody has any other evidence, all we have points to a clear winner. I think we should move on to looking at Tom's idea of bendy light.
There are many claims here it's not just self illuminated and lit by the sun. There were other claims too like the moon is lit by "earthshine" Now there is a claim that either the Earth is generating light (I assume either internally, man made, or through reflected light from the sun). It was my claim that the moon is lit by the sun and some other unknown light source.
Looking at a picture and disagree with what hypothesis the observations support does not equal a clear winner IMO.
1. your observation was that the moon is clearly lit from a very bright celestial body.
2. jrows observation was that the moon is clearly self lit and rotating.
3. My observation was that the moon appears to possibly be lit from a very bright celestial body and also either generating it's own light or being lit from a second light source.
ASTRONOMERS have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordnance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious. This is admitted by some of those who have written on the subject, as the following quotations will show:--
"Some persons when they look into a telescope for the first time having heard that mountains are to be seen, and discovering nothing but these (previously described) unmeaning figures, break off in disappointment, and have their faith in these things rather diminished than increased. I would advise, therefore, before the student takes even his first view of the moon through a telescope, to form as clear an idea as he can how mountains, and valleys, and caverns, situated at such a distance ought to look, and by what marks they may be recognised. Let him seize, if possible, the most favourable periods (about the time of the first quarter), and previously learn from drawings and explanations how to interpret everything he sees." 1
"Whenever we exhibit celestial objects to inexperienced observers, it is usual to precede the view with good drawings of the objects, accompanied by an explanation of what each appearance exhibited in the telescope indicates. The novice is told that mountains and valleys can be seen in the moon by the aid of the telescope; but on looking he sees a confused mass of light and shade, and nothing which looks to him like either mountains or valleys. Had his attention been previously directed to a plain drawing of the moon, and each particular appearance interpreted to him, he would then have looked through the telescope with intelligence and satisfaction." 2
"It is fresh in our remembrance that when showing a friend the moon at an advanced phase, 'Is this the moon?' he said, 'why I see nothing but clouds and bubbles!'--a very graphic description of a first view by an uneducated eye. None of the wonderful beauties of the landscape scenery that are so striking to the beholder, can either be recognised or appreciated under such circumstances. It is only after a careful training of the eye, that the peculiarities of the full moon can be truly apprehended." 1
Thus it is admitted by those who teach, that the moon is a spherical world, having hills and dales like the earth, that such things can only be seen in imagination.
"Nothing but unmeaning figures" are really visible, and "the students break off in disappointment, and have their faith in such things rather diminished than increased, until they previously learn from drawings and explanations how to interpret everything seen."
But who first made the drawings? Who first interpreted the "unmeaning figures" and the "confused mass of light and shade?" Who first declared them to indicate mountains and valleys, and ventured to make drawings, and give explanations and interpretations for the purpose of biassing the minds, and fixing or guiding the imaginations of subsequent observers? Whoever they were, they, at least, had "given the reins to fancy," and afterwards took upon themselves to dogmatise and teach their bold, crude, and unwarranted imaginings to succeeding investigators. And this is the kind of "evidence and reasoning" which is obtruded in our seats of learning, and spread out in the numerous works which are published for the "edification" of society.
THERE seems to be a thorough conviction in the minds of the Newtonian theorists that many of the dark places on the moon are the shadows of mountains, and very graphic descriptions are given of the manner in which these dark places lengthen and shorten, and change their direction, as the sun is high or low, or on the right or left of certain parts. Hitherto, or in the preceding pages of this work, a spirit of antagonism has been maintained towards the Newtonian astronomers. The Zetetic process has forced a direct denial of every part of their system; but in the present instance there are certain points of agreement. There is at present no reliable evidence against the statements of the following quotation
"As the moon turns towards the sun, the tops of her mountains being the first to catch his rays, are made to stand out illuminated, like so many bright diamonds on her unilluminated black surface. And if watched with a pretty good telescope the light of the sun may be seen slowly descending the mountain sides, and at length to light up the plains and valleys below; thus making those parts which but a short time before were intensely black, now white as the snows of winter. And in those basin-like mountains (the craters) the shadows on one
p. 342
side may be seen descending far down on the opposite side, thereby revealing their vast proportions and mighty depths. As the time of the full moon approaches the shadows shorten, and when the rays of the sun fall perpendicularly on her surface (as, at full moon) they cease altogether. But now, if still watched, just the opposite appearances will take place, as the enlightened face of the moon begins to turn from the sun the lower parts are the first to lose his rays and pass into darkness, which will be observed to creep gradually up the mountain sides, and at last their tips will appear to pass out of the sun's light as the last spark of a lighted candle. The enlightened parts of the moon, however, no sooner begin to turn from the sun than the shadows of the mountains again come into view, but on the opposite side to that on which they were seen when the moon was on the increase, and gradually to increase in length so long as the parts up which they are thrown are in the light of the sun." 1
That such changes of light and shade in the varying positions of the moon, as those above described, are observed may be admitted; but that they arise from the interposition of immense mountain ranges is of necessity denied. If the Newtonians would be logically modest, the only word they could use would be that prominences exist on the moon's surface. To say that mountains and valleys and extinct volcanic craters exist, is to insult the understanding and the common sense of mankind. What possibility of proof exists that such is the character of the moon? Let them be content with that which is, alone warranted by the appearances which have been observed--that the moon's surface is irregular, having
p. 343
upon it prominences and indentations of various forms and sizes, and running in many different directions. This is the common property of all observers, and is not to be seized and perverted, or interpreted by any one class of philosophical arrogants as proving an essential part of their illogical hypothesis.
It has been demonstrated by more than sufficient matter-of-fact evidence that the moon is self-luminous, semi-transparent, admitted to be globular, observed to have prominences and irregularities upon her surface, and moves in a path always above the earth, and at a distance less than that of the sun, and, therefore, that she is a comparatively small body, and simply a satellite and light-giver to the earth. If we choose to reason at all from the facts which appear in evidence, we must necessarily conclude that the moon is a cold, semi-transparent, crystalline mass, more like a spherical ice-berg than anything else, shining with a peculiar delicate phosphorescent light of her own, but, in certain positions, her own light is overcome by the stronger and more violent light of the sun, which causes her protuberances to darken the various indentations adjoining them. This is all that any human being can possibly say without presuming on the ignorance of his fellow men, and daring to obtrude his own wild imaginings where only fact and reason and modest anxiety to know the simple truth ought to exist. This said and submitted to, we are able to illustrate and corroborate it by corresponding facts on earth. It is a well-known fact that often, when passing over the sea during a summer's night, the wake of a vessel--of a steam-ship in particular--is strongly
p. 344
luminous as far as the eye can see. It is also a fact often observed that some kinds of fish will shine with a peculiar light for hours after they are taken out of the water; and it is known that, collect this light by concave reflectors to what extent we may, it will not, to whatever degree of brilliancy we may bring it by concentration to a focus, increase the temperature, as indicated by the most delicate thermometer. This is precisely what we find as to the character of moon-light. The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon. Hence, it is repeated, that observation, fact, experiment, and consistent reasoning, all lead us to the conclusion that the moon is a comparatively small body, only a few hundred miles above the earth, that her surface is irregular, that her substance is crystalised
p. 343
and semi-transparent, and that she shines with a delicate phosphorescent light of her own, but is subject to the action of the light of the sun, which, when in certain positions, causes those peculiar manifestations of light and shade which dreamy and prepossessed philosophers have assigned to the interposition of immense and peculiar mountain structures. Surely the night of dreams is coming to an end, and the sleepers will awake ere long to open their eyes and apply their talents, not for the interpretation of what they have for so long a period been simply dreaming, but for the discovery of the real and tangible causes of the numerous beautiful phenomena constantly occurring in the world around them.
Rowbotham does have a point. Since as terrestestial investigators we don't know enough about the moon to say what it is, what shape it might be, or what it is made out of, the author makes a good point that we are assuming a lot with our most basic assumptions.We could almost forgive Rowbotham for making such claims. The telescopes of his day may not have been as powerful or as abundant as ours are now. Let us not make any conjectures, but look simply at the evidence before us and judge fairly what it is we see. We'll be careful to note every detail, and see if we cannot determine whether we are looking at a pimple or a crater.
As an example, depending on skewed view, vertical perspective flipping, or other effects, a lunar pothole could easily be interpreted to be a lunar pimple.
(https://i.imgur.com/KWvwoa3.png)
Rowbotham is not expressing the above in particular in his work, but it shows the fallacy of assumption.
Since ICST brought up the idea of projections, another chapter of interest is Moon Transparent (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm).
ICST, I didn't have an bowl-moon theory in mind, although I have heard of such theories in these Flat Earth discussions. My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.
Consider this blue-glowing pufferfish:
(https://markp427.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/imag1004.jpg)
The glowing pufferfish makes its own light, but there are erranous darkened features on its surface that come from two sources:
- Solid pieces on the surface
- The pufferfish is also being illuminated by a secondary lightsource
- It is also not a stretch to see that the pufferfish could create its own shadows, considering the texture of its surface.
The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon.
Ok let's go through it again. As I understand it, JRowe argued that the features of the moon (craters, etc) are NOT all pointing at us in the same way while the lit crescent moves across that face. We took photos and compared them. It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us while the lit crescent moved over them. If there was something I missed, I'm happy to look at it again. Please present anything to contradict my conclusion. To be entirely honest, once that was shown and JRowe continued to insist that the features didn't line up, I stopped reading his argument. So it's entirely plausible that I've missed something. I'll admit fault and agree to look again if you have something.
I'm not trying to win any particular point. I want to remain carefully objective. I'm trying very hard to help the FE side come up with something viable.
On 1. above: The photos of the moon show what appears to be shadows behind craters. This is not disputed. (Is it?) This makes that an objective conclusion. There appear to be shadows cast by the craters. This is strong evidence for the externally lit hypothesis and is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis. Not biased and not a conclusion. This is evidence, and I don't think it's in dispute.
Finally, I noted that the moon is opaque. (Didn't show it, but we could test this if you want.) This rules out the hologram hypothesis but leaves the externally lit and self-lit hypothesis workable.
I summarize this all to say the only evidence we have here so far only matches the externally lit hypothesis. More evidence and further exploration of what we have is welcome.
On 2. above: JRowe made some claim that the moon is self-illuminated. Was any evidence put forth to back this up? As I've said, I didn't see what it was, so bring it forth, and I agree to consider it.
The moon could be partially self-lit and also partially externally lit. There is a thread of logic that follows this point that I'd rather not go down just yet. For now, I'd like to focus on whether or not we can rule out the externally lit hypothesis - be it in addition to self-lit or without.
I do agree that they are probably craters. I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.
My analysis is that if that puffer fish had craters of mixed material instead of spines, that those craters would probably have shadows; and that those shadows could be created by the light of the pufferfish itself, and perhaps, enhanced a bit by other light sources around the puffer fish.
I am reminded of this section in Shadows on the Moon of Earth Not a Globe:QuoteThe following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon.
I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.
As I read Tom's quote, I believe he is expressing that dark shapes on the moon may be, but are not necessarily, shadows caused by external light.I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a light bulb, textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."
As I read Tom's quote, I believe he is expressing that dark shapes on the moon may be, but are not necessarily, shadows caused by external light.I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a light bulb, textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."
I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a light bulb, textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?QuoteI disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a light bulb, textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
Lets go back to the Puffer Fish image an notice an observation:
(https://markp427.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/imag1004.jpg)
Click to enlarge
The interior light source of the Puffer Fish is off center. In fact, this off center interior light source is creating a "lunar phase" upon the puffer fish. The puffer fish is not 100% illuminated.
Quick illustration:
(https://i.imgur.com/B8WHeek.png)
We see that an internal light source can cause shadows in a crater alone, without the need for an external source at all.
Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?I gave that some thought.
Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?
Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?I gave that some thought.
We should be able to project backwards from the highlights we see in the craters to see where each one appears to be lit from. If the moon is internally lit, we can identify where the light appears to be coming from inside the moon.
We should likewise be able to trace the brightness of the moon's light over its surface the internal light hypothesis should produce a brightness fall-off consistent with increasing distance from the light source... although even as I type it I suspect the crescent moon is going to disprove this idea quite rapidly... What do you think about the crescent moon? Is there a way to internally light the moon and make a crescent?
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.
it always does. you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string. hold the string taut to make it into a straight line. now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points. be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.
it always does. you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string. hold the string taut to make it into a straight line. now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points. be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.
The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.
If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.
You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.
The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.
If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.
You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.
(https://i.imgur.com/qkT3vQr.jpg)
The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.
If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.
Perspective:You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?
The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .
Comparing a ball to the moon:My mistake... when the sun is below the horizon, you cannot do this experiment because you're in the Earth's shadow while the moon is not. Wait until the sun comes up, and you'll see the illusion is easily explained.
Dumb. There is an image of the moon pointing up away from the earth when the sun is below the horizon. Are you to assert that a ball will point up into the sky when the sun is below the horizon?
Gibbous moon tricks, et all:The same explanation works for gibbous and crescent moons. Check it. Would you like me to look up the next crescent moon?... hint... it's tomorrow.
The effect also happens with crescent moons, which is even more perplexing. See the video nick linked me to on the other forum the last time we had the conversation. A crescent moon is seen to behave the same way: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76072.msg2064864#msg2064864
Perspective:
The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math
Rowbotham does have a point. Since as terrestestial investigators we don't know enough about the moon to say what it is, what shape it might be, or what it is made out of, the author makes a good point that we are assuming a lot with our most basic assumptions.
My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.
In your OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us.
In Jrows OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon rotated.
How can we test these two conflicting OPINIONS?
By looking at the features, and identifying them on repeated observations. From the first set of photos JRowe said he couldn't see the correlation between features in two pictures. I cited a different pair of pictures and labelled the features for him. He seems to have gone a bit quiet after that, and retreated to other threads.
"It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us " Is not very objective to me. You looked at some pictures, decided that the pictures supported your hypothesis and claimed it was "incontrovertible". I believe the pictures supported your hypothesis but I need more than to look at some pictures. I need some sort of test that we can all agree on. Looking at pictures is not such a test.
You do realise you can look at the Moon yourself, with your own astronomical telescope, don't you? You don't have to look at pictures.
Again the claim that "shadows cast by the craters is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis" Is definitely biased. There is CLEARLY still light hitting my eye from the dark side of the moon. The same light is also hitting the camera in the pictures. You even saw it yourself here: "the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too."
Yes, but the Earthshine hitting the dark side isn't sufficient to generate clear shadows, as it's far dimmer than sunlight.
I agree that this evidence suggest that the moon is not a hologram.
Could there be a celestial light source which exists behind or to the side of the surface of the earth?
We never see it directly, only its effects. If there is a sun and a moon above the Earth, why couldn't there be other light sources to the side or below the earth?
This image of the sun is an example, like the blowfish, where light and dark shapes are caused by other phenomenon besides external light shadows.
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.
IMG (Tom, there's a REASON your image is captioned with the word ILLUSION)
There are some attempted explanations for this, but they are untenable ...
No, they are not
The moon is reflecting light from the night side of the earth?
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.
it always does. you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string. hold the string taut to make it into a straight line. now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points. be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.
The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.
...and the Sun is ... out in space.
If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.
Show us how the line is "pointing upwards" based on that photo. We can't see the horizon off to the right, so how can you show the angle of the illumination points above it?
You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.
If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.
Do the math.
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.
Perspective:You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?
The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .
Look at this simplistic diagram. Can you draw a straight line between the day side of the Earth and the 'night' side of the Moon at any of the Moon phases here? I can.
http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/images/pictures/space/moonphases.jpg (http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/images/pictures/space/moonphases.jpg)
Here's how your photographer can be on the night side of Earth, looking at an almost Full Moon, with the moon illuminated by a sun below his horizon (not to scale, of course). The sun is to the left, obviously...
(https://i.imgur.com/wi77lDC.jpg)
Do the math.
no math required. you only need a piece of string and maybe 20 seconds of your time. if you would stop being a rationalist for a moment and actually do an experiment yourself, you'd see that the string points to the sun's location, even if the sun is below the horizon.
it seems like you're perfectly willing to depart from an empiricist mindset the moment it's inconvenient to your narrative.
Perspective:You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?
The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .
As a body increases its distance from you the less it will turn to perspective. The examples of corners of rooms tilting, planes tilting, rubix cubes tilting as they are seen over the observer are all irrelevant, since the distance to the moon as it passes over you in RET is at a much greater distance, and generally stays the same distance from you at all times.
You did the math on how much the moon would tilt or change position due to perspective in RET before in previous threads. I saw you. Don't play dumb. You know that the moon barely shifts or turns to perspective.
DO THE MATH
In your trolling video against me, in the examples bobby is referencing, and many other explanations, you and others are referencing SMALL SCALE OR CLOSE UP perspective. I don't really give a flip about those explanations. They only showcase a handicap in logic, as far as I am concerned.
I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
Really? Let's see you do the math. I never see you do it. You propose these thought experiment analogies all the time without any math to back them up.
How does the string point to the direction of the sun if the sun is below the horizon and the moon is pointing upwards into the sky?
Are you telling us that any and all angles that are pointing upwards are eventually going to come back and meet the earth's horizon rather traveling out into space? ::)
How does the string point to the direction of the sun if the sun is below the horizon and the moon is pointing upwards into the sky?
Are you telling us that any and all angles that are pointing upwards are eventually going to come back and meet the earth's horizon rather traveling out into space? ::)
instead of imaging the experiment in your head, just do it. it takes 20 seconds and a piece of string. if you do the experiment, then you will see exactly why you're confused.
you're just thinking of the space as a 2d projection. it's a 3d space.
you're just thinking of the space as a 2d projection. it's a 3d space.
(https://i.imgur.com/jcPUnBj.png)
Are you asserting that if Dexter fires his laser cannon, that the laser beam will leave the weapon and eventually intersect the horizon of the earth?
The moon disappears when it gets too close to the sun. The moon is only seen in the day when the sun is across from it at nearly the maximum distance it can be from it in the opposite sky; and when it gets too high, it disappears. If you imagine straight lines curving on a dome of the skymof course there is going to be an area where anything pointing upwards can seem to arc to a place across to the opposite sky, and into the opposite horizon.The path of the earth, moon and sun are documented and proven. Look it up. And perspecive does not come into the discussion, even you version of it.
You can imagine lines on the above Dexter cartoon still that arcs around to the opposite horizon and intersects it. But will a laser that points upwards really hit the opposite horizon when fired? No. You are imagining silly celestial sphere nonsense.
You are imaging the line bending on a dome to hit something in the opposite sky and the curve of that bend is up to your own imagination. If the laser weapon in the above image were a real object, you could take a string and connect the tip of that laser weapon in the above image to almost anything in the opposite sky.
None of the above are explanatory. Making a connection that this is an "explanation" for what is happening, in any way, is fallacious.
Do the math under the Round Earth model. Perspective cannot cause things to shift or tilt to the degree it needs to. Don't post malarkey about strings and corners of the ceilings and about how you drove past a building and saw that it turned or tilted in angle.
DO THE MATH
And if you draw in the horizon line for the observer the moon points into the observer's horizon.
(https://i.imgur.com/YR9cWkE.png)
DO THE MATH
And if you draw in the horizon line for the observer the moon points into the observer's horizon.
https://i.imgur.com/YR9cWkE.png (https://i.imgur.com/YR9cWkE.png)
That's not a horizon for the photographer. That's a tangent to the surface of the Earth.
Here's where the photographer's horizon line will be (not to scale, obviously)
https://i.imgur.com/o5sFEJp.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/o5sFEJp.jpg)
Since his camera is looking up 45 degrees toward the Moon, he's looking above the horizon at that side, along the shortest side of the green triangle.
Since the purple circle of his horizon is completely in the night side of Earth, the sun is below his horizon. The illumination of the Moon, along the longest side of the green triangle, doesn't care where he is, as there's a direct line between the Moon and Sun (even though the sun is below the photographer's horizon.
You need to think in 3D, not 2D.
DO THE MATH
Do it right.
You're in the wrong axis, one that has nothing to do with the sun.
Here's what you're doing. Here's my 4.5"D moon placed 40' away:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zl94z6.jpg
And here it is again with the camera moved laterally 15":
http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zl94z6.jpg
But that's rotation of the moon's lateral planes about either the x-axis (if observers are split E/W) or the y-axis (if observers are split N/S).
http://oi63.tinypic.com/n6lgg.jpg
What you've calculated is why you don't see "around" the moon given RE distances and sizes of moon and earth. But that's an earth/moon relationship only and has nothing to do with the rotation about the z-axis, which is what the picture of the sun's light on the moon not pointing to the sun is all about.
Perspective very much does come into the discussion in order to explain why the light/shadow of the sun doesn't appear to be pointing straight at the sun from the perspective of earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc)
Ignore what Tom posted. He's working the wrong problem.
SHOW HOW THESE VAST PERSPECTIVE TILT CHANGES CAN OCCUR IN RET
The phase of the moon is still pointing into the horizon, Tumeni.
The moon isn't going to shift by less than two degrees, but tilt by 45 degrees. Don't be that person.
DO THE MATH
SHOW HOW THESE VAST PERSPECTIVE TILT CHANGES CAN OCCUR IN RET
You did the math on how much the moon would tilt or change position due to perspective in RET before in previous threads. I saw you. Don't play dumb. You know that the moon barely shifts or turns to perspective.
DO THE MATH
In your trolling video against me, in the examples bobby is referencing, and many other explanations, you and others are referencing small scale or close up perspective. I don't really give a flip about those explanations. They only showcase a handicap in logic and critical thinking, as far as I am concerned.
You can't explain this mathematically, and we have not seen a mathematical analysis by an astronomer using the distances and sizes in RET.
You can't explain this mathematically, and we have not seen a mathematical analysis by an astronomer using the distances and sizes in RET. This is for the simple fact that this matter is unexpainable.You demanded we do the math. Now you're saying it can't be explained mathematically?
The perspective tilting explanation is fiction. If there was a real explanation, we would have a real document to point to -- not a stupid youtube video of some close range perspective tilting effects.
This needs to be described using the real properties of the Round Earth System. I thought it was supposed to predict everything? Show it then. Show that the Round Earth System can cause this sort of tilting.Okay. Challenge accepted.
That's a really nice one. For me it shows, we're on a sphere.
"SHOUT" all you want, but until you can grasp that you're working in the wrong axes, you're just going to remain frustrated, thinking that you're right and we're not getting it.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/2ed8ok6.jpg
Astronomers do care about this sort of thing. Over the years every time this topic comes up and the audience provides quotes from astronomical texts, we see that astronomers don't really know why, have trouble explaining it, and mumble something vague about celestial spheres.
Astronomers do care about this sort of thing. Over the years every time this topic comes up and the audience provides quotes from astronomical texts, we see that astronomers don't really know why, have trouble explaining it, and mumble something vague about celestial spheres.
there isn't anything to explain. you're just plain wrong that there's a problem to begin with.
https://i.imgur.com/AQpzxwI.png
you're saying that the line i've drawn won't point at the sun. i'm telling you that it absolutely does, and you can demonstrate that it does by making your own straight line with a piece of string. if you align one end of your string to be like the perpendicular line i've drawn on this moon, then you will find that the other end points at the sun.
you don't have to do any math. you say this line doesn't point at the sun. i say it does. don't take my word for it. see for yourself.
If the distances/attributes of the Round Earth Model can explain the moon tilt illusion for gibbous and crescent moons, I have absolutely no problem admitting that. As I have seen, it cannot. It cannot explain it, and this is why the literature is so vague about the matter.I don't know what you mean about "vague literature," but I'll get started on that. Will take some time... got work this weekend and family stuff.
If the distances/attributes of the Round Earth Model can explain the moon tilt illusion for gibbous and crescent moons, I have absolutely no problem admitting that. As I have seen, it cannot. It cannot explain it, and this is why the literature is so vague about the matter.
As I said, the only time the moon and sun is seen in the sky is when they are on opposite sides of the sky. Otherwise, when the moon gets too close to the sun it disappears.
Find a panorama of the moon pointing into the sky above the sun and draw your string on it.
What you are trying to do is say that the sky is a dome and that if you make vertical triangles along the top of the image, cut it out with scissors, and paste it together in a domish way that there is a way to make (force) the moon to point at the sun. By manipulating it in this manner you can also force the moon to point at any number of objects on that opposite horizon.
This is not coherent. It is the "celestial sphere" explanation given by some astronomers; but this explanation falls flat with the slightest breeze.
- The sun and moon are not painted on a celestial sphere around the earth where straight lines become curved.
- The sun and moon exist in regular geometric space where an arrow will always point to the object it is pointing at, not in an entirely different direction.
There will need to be a more coherent explanation than this celestial sphere theory. In RET the observers aren't in a planetarium with lines projected on a screen above them that turn into curves. The observers are in regular space.
Learn how a panorama works, Gary. A panorama is just a series of horizontally stitched images as the eye and camera sees it.And in the stitching, lines that are straight in real life develop bends and angles because the camera focal point is rotated.
It's not a camera effect. The eye sees it too.We have enough problems with your use of the word perspective, let's not have the same with panorama.
Learn how a panorama works, Gary. A panorama is just a series of horizontally stitched images as the eye and camera sees it.
Here is another one:
(https://i.imgur.com/FpQlQpJ.jpg)
Full size version is here: https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1218a/
This needs to be described using the real properties of the Round Earth System. I thought it was supposed to predict everything? Show it then. Show that the Round Earth System can cause this sort of tilting.Okay. Challenge accepted.
You can't explain this mathematically, and we have not seen a mathematical analysis by an astronomer using the distances and sizes in RET. This is for the simple fact that this matter is unexpainable.There are real documents about the "The moon terminator illusion" but astronomers do not see it as an illusion.
The perspective tilting explanation is fiction. If there was a real explanation, we would have a real document to point to -- not a stupid youtube video of some close range perspective tilting effects.
The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere.
Minnaert gives only a passing reference: “...the line connecting the horns of the moon, between its first quarter and full moon, for instance, does not appear to be
at all perpendicular to the direction from sun to moon; we apparently think of this direction as being a curved line. Fix this direction by stretching a piece of string taut in front of your eye; however unlikely it may have seemed to you at first you will now perceive that the condition of perpendicularity is satisfied”.
This needs to be described using the real properties of the Round Earth System. I thought it was supposed to predict everything? Show it then. Show that the Round Earth System can cause this sort of tilting.OK, but I do hope that your maths are better than mine: The Moon Tilt Illusion, Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf)
Using the Round Earth System ™ -based Stellarium
OK, but I do hope that your maths are better than mine: The Moon Tilt Illusion, Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf)
I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
Yes. Read that, and notice the following.
The number of times the author tries to explain the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room or a building when you travel past it: numerous
The number of times the author actually uses the distance to the moon in any of her calculations: none
The number of times the author remarks how mysterious and hard to explain the issue is: several
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
As I said, the only time the moon and sun is seen in the sky is when they are on opposite sides of the sky. Otherwise, when the moon gets too close to the sun it disappears.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In this example, the Moon was slightly West of South, and the Sun was climbing in the East. Roughly 90 degrees between them, as would be expected with a roughly Half Moon.
https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L (https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L)
A laser cannon pointed upwards into the sky is going to fire its laser beam into outer space. Its not going to wrap around to the horizon. The only way to get the laser beam to go to the opposite horizon is if you imagine it curving on the dome of the sky.
But we're not talking about something "pointed upwards into the sky" from the ground. We're talking about an object some 240k miles distant, illuminated by a light source some 93 million miles distant. The line between those two IS a straight one, we're merely observing it from different angles, with differing inclinations with respect to that line.
It's a triangle. You, or any other earthbound observer, are at one point. The Sun and Moon are at the other two points. The side connecting sun and moon is the side opposite your point. The earthbound observer is not necessarily on the same plane as that line. The earthbound observer will, 99% of the time, be at an angle to that line, and will not perceive that line as a horizontal.
When looking at 2D diagrams of the interaction of earth, sun and moon, you always have to fill in the third dimension, or model it with scale model earth and moon. The latter would be the empiricist's way. Have you tried it?
Your "string" experiment is bunk and lacking in explanatory power. You can find something pointing upwards and put a string to it and make any number of paths to the opposite horizon.
...but not to a specific object. Nobody is suggesting pointing string at random toward the horizon.
There will need to be a more coherent explanation than this celestial sphere theory. In RET the observers aren't in a planetarium with lines projected on a screen above them that turn into curves. The observers are in regular space.
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
On my model, if I put the distance at 0, I get #DIV/0!Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
There is a distance field, but put a 0 into it, or cut it out of the worksheet. It doesn't affect the phase illuminated at all, or any of the other fields in the main section.
If it was based on the Round Earth model most of those fields should turn NULL when the distance is removed.
(https://i.imgur.com/jcPUnBj.png)
Are you asserting that if Dexter fires his laser cannon, that the laser beam will leave the weapon and eventually intersect the horizon of the earth?
On my model, if I put the distance at 0, I get #DIV/0!Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
There is a distance field, but put a 0 into it, or cut it out of the worksheet. It doesn't affect the phase illuminated at all, or any of the other fields in the main section.
If it was based on the Round Earth model most of those fields should turn NULL when the distance is removed.
Perhaps we are using different models. My model does work, however.
Find a panorama of the moon pointing into the sky above the sun and draw your string on it.
No. Step away from your PC, go outside when you can see the sun and moon in the sky, and draw your string on what you see, not on a 2D picture. That's the only way to do it. That's the empiricist's way, isn't it? Do a real experiment?
What you are trying to do is say that the sky is a dome and that if you make vertical triangles along the top of the image, cut it out with scissors, and paste it together in a domish way that there is a way to make (force) the moon to point at the sun.
The excel worksheet has little to do with the round earth model. It is based on patterns.
Why should the "author . . . . . use the distance to the moon in any of her calculations" when those distances are quite irrelevant?OK, but I do hope that your maths are better than mine: The Moon Tilt Illusion, Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf)I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
Yes. Read that, and notice the following.
The number of times the author tries to explain the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room or a building when you travel past it: numerous
The number of times the author actually uses the distance to the moon in any of her calculations: none
The number of times the author remarks how mysterious and hard to explain the issue is: several
Tom's point, and this probably deserves a separate thread, is that astronomers simply observed that the heavens move around the earth in approx. 24 hours, that the Moon moves around the Earth in approx 28 days etc. These are simply observations, with no underlying predictive model.The excel worksheet has little to do with the round earth model. It is based on patterns.
Who defined those patterns, if not the astronomers who determined that the Earth has a rotation of approx 24 hrs, that the Moon moves around the Earth in approx 28 days?
Using the Round Earth System ™ -based Stellarium
This is false. Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.
(https://i.imgur.com/qkT3vQr.jpg)
No, the author of that video is explaining it correctly, and very well too. I can not explain this better that him. He's doing a great job. You're just not allowing yourself to get this because it invalidates your beliefs. It is possible that these concepts are simply beyond some people.Perspective very much does come into the discussion in order to explain why the light/shadow of the sun doesn't appear to be pointing straight at the sun from the perspective of earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc)
Ignore what Tom posted. He's working the wrong problem.
The author of that video is, once again, as in the numerous explanations we have seen, comparing close range perspective tilting to a grand Round Earth system with bodies that are very far away.
Speaking of which, I never saw a good waning crescent moon this time around that showed "earthlight" illumination of it's portion in shadow. Now, we're in the new moon phase, so I'll have to wait and start watching Friday or so just after sunset to see if I can catch it on the waxing crescent. JRowe said he'd never seen such the phenomenon.
Tom, you've inspired me. I'll do the math for you. I'll make you a video (100% troll free this time). But in return for all this effort, I'd like something from you. I'd like you to agree in advance that IF I can do the math you ask for, and IF the math shows that the RE model explains this illusion, you will publicly concede the point. You don't have to agree that the world is round, just admit that you made a mistake and the moon terminator illusion is perfectly explained by the standard heliocentric model.At long last, here is the video where I "DO THE MATH".
What do you say? Sound fair enough?
I've watched the first 17 minutes so far before I had to stop. It seems to be a good job at illustrating what the paper is trying to describe. Please do not take my criticism the wrong way.
Movies starts off with examples that are clearly close range, and therefore subject to significant perspective effects.
Model from video:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZPPEJFo.png)
I may be mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am to be wrong, but this seems to be a bit out of proportion.
Distance from earth to sun: 92,960,000 mi
Distance from earth to moon: 238,900 mi
If we imagine that line growing outwards from the earth to the sun growing and the distance to the moon shrinking, we can visualize that if the proportions changed in that manner the phase would point lower.
At the 15 minute mark the attempt of the project is now to "project the sun and the moon onto a view plane" at a distance close to the observer.
"Viewing Plane" theory from the paper:
(https://i.imgur.com/aM8Lzfj.png)
The construct by this author of the paper in question (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf) just shows that she was unable to explain the event in any other way.
She is basically using the inexplicable "celestial sphere" idea where bodies are projected on a celestial sphere like a planetarium and straight lines become curved, which is also described in her work as appearing in astronomical literature.
Current thoughts: Her work seems to be mathematical fantasy to try and explain something that is not able to be explained.
I will continue watching when I get a chance.
The construct by this author of the paper in question (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf) just shows that she was unable to explain the event in any other way.
She is basically using the inexplicable "celestial sphere" idea where bodies are projected on a celestial sphere like a planetarium and straight lines become curved, which is also described in her work as appearing in astronomical literature.No they are not. There is no celestial sphere at work. That's not what is happening in the slightest. I want you to start to trust me, so I'll be very patient about this. There is a projection onto the observer's view plane. That is not a "celestial sphere". I tried to explain this in my video by using the marker on a window analogy. Another analogy would be the focal plane at the back of a camera or the retina of your eye. A camera records the image that hits the CCD (or film) at the back. That CCD is a flat plate - a plane. The mathematics allows us to place a plane anywhere in front of the camera and make a perfect scaled image of what the camera will record. The only thing we need in order to prove this is the fact that light travels in straight lines. I know your model says this is not so, but this is the RE model we are testing. In the RE model, light travels in straight lines (since we are not discussing any refraction effects here).
Current thoughts: Her work seems to be mathematical fantasy to try and explain something that is not able to be explained.It is explained perfectly. The math is really quite boring, but you asked me to do the math. There you are, there is the math.
I may be mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am to be wrong, but this seems to be a bit out of proportion.
Distance from earth to sun: 92,960,000 mi
Distance from earth to moon: 238,900 mi
Having anticipated this criticism from the previous video, I made you a version to scale for this video. As Tumeni points out, the scale makes all the different parts tiny if they need to share a screen, but with a 3D realtime sim, you can zoom around and look at the different parts from different angles to see it all - it doesn't have to all fit together into the same screen.I may be mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am to be wrong, but this seems to be a bit out of proportion.
Distance from earth to sun: 92,960,000 mi
Distance from earth to moon: 238,900 mi
It has to be to have a meaningful graphic fit onto your screen.
Let's approximate this to 92 'units' distance to the sun, and 0.24 units, distance to the moon, keeping correct proportions
If you represent 92 units across the full width of your 50cm wide monitor, each unit is (50/92) = 0.54cm, or 5mm.
0.24 units, at that scale, is (0.24*5) = 1.3mm. So you'd have to draw Earth and Moon smaller than that to show them on the graphic, with 1.3mm separating them. Seems you'd need a magnifying glass.
No?
Tom, you've inspired me. I'll do the math for you. I'll make you a video (100% troll free this time). But in return for all this effort, I'd like something from you. I'd like you to agree in advance that IF I can do the math you ask for, and IF the math shows that the RE model explains this illusion, you will publicly concede the point. You don't have to agree that the world is round, just admit that you made a mistake and the moon terminator illusion is perfectly explained by the standard heliocentric model.
What do you say? Sound fair enough?
If the distances/attributes of the Round Earth Model can explain the moon tilt illusion for gibbous and crescent moons, I have absolutely no problem admitting that. As I have seen, it cannot. It cannot explain it, and this is why the literature is so vague about the matter.
You agreed that if I could provide this, you would concede the point. All you need to do now is to publicly acknowledge that the tilt of the moon is completely consistent with the RE model.Such a concession would put serious strain on any flat earth model that accepts that the moon's illumination and phase are due to reflection of the sun's light. The geometry explaining that illusion doesn't work in any flat earth topology I've seen. The only explanation that might work is if the moon is self-luminescent, which is why (I think) Tom introduced the conundrum in the first place. But as you've explained, you can explain it with moon reflecting sunlight in a round earth model. That doesn't solve the puzzle for flat earth though; thus the theory that the moon generates its own light.
That's not the Round Earth Model. Since when in RET are images of bodies in space projected onto a plane close above the observer's heads?When you take a photo of something, an image is projected onto the film inside the camera. Use a digital camera, and the film is replaced by a CCD plate. Use your own eyes, and the film is replaced by the retina at the back of your eye. That's right, every time you take a photo of something, images of that something are projected onto a plane inside the camera. Don't try to tell us that cameras don't work under RE next. Last I checked, cameras worked on flat earth too.
The value of the angle α is the same for the vectors m, s and z or their corresponding unit vectors, which are used in Eq. (11) to avoid having to know the actual distances of the moon and the sun from the observer.
Okay, I finished watching the video. I kept waiting with anticipation for math to be done under the dimensions of the Round Earth System, as advertised. However, that did not happen. The video mostly consisted of you reading the equations from the paper.The honorable thing to do is admit you do not understand the math and concede the point.
The dimensions of the Round Earth System appear nowhere in it. In fact, the author says in the work that they avoided using the RET numbers.You want the dimensions of the moon and sun to be used? Here they are. You cannot deny it anymore:
From p. 9:QuoteThe value of the angle α is the same for the vectors m, s and z or their corresponding unit vectors, which are used in Eq. (11) to avoid having to know the actual distances of the moon and the sun from the observer.
The dimensions for the Round Earth System are nowhere in the math by the authors of that paper, nor is it in your video when describing the matter.
Secondly, it is apparent to all that the author needs to project images onto a plane close above the observer's head in order to attempt to describe this. It is entirely apparent that the authors cannot "really" explain it.What is apparent to all is that you simply do not understand the math. You went on and on shouting "DO THE MATH." Well I did the math. It isn't my fault you don't understand it. I'm happy to explain any individual step you can't understand.
We may as well just say that the moon and sun are a close distance above the observer's head, as to entertain that.
Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.This is your distances complaint AGAIN! I've addressed it several times now. Just above here, I worked the math with all the distances included.
Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.
All-in-all the marks for the "Round Earth explanation" are poor, and I intend to point these things out when I get around to making the Wiki article on the subject.The only thing poor here is your ability to admit it when you are wrong.
You agreed that if I could provide this, you would concede the point. All you need to do now is to publicly acknowledge that the tilt of the moon is completely consistent with the RE model.Such a concession would put serious strain on any flat earth model that accepts that the moon's illumination and phase are due to reflection of the sun's light.
That doesn't solve the puzzle for flat earth though
Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.This is your distances complaint AGAIN! I've addressed it several times now. Just above here, I worked the math with all the distances included.
Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.
I have shown mathematically that those distances cancel.
I showed in the 3D simulation that those distances do not matter.
I will come back to your other arguments in a bit. This is the bit that makes it clear:If you can find any error anywhere in the math, please share. If you cannot, then you must accept that the math is correct. It's either correct or it's not. If it's not, please point out the mistake.Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.This is your distances complaint AGAIN! I've addressed it several times now. Just above here, I worked the math with all the distances included.
Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.
I have shown mathematically that those distances cancel.
I showed in the 3D simulation that those distances do not matter.
It is pretty obvious that distances do matter.
Your position: In RET a green arrow suspended in the air at the height of the moon which points at the sun will point in the same direction, regardless of whether the sun is 1 foot from the earth, 1 million miles from the earth, or 100 billion miles from the earth. It will point in the same direction nonetheless!
This is what you are saying, this is what the shady math is saying, and everyone knows that this is NOT TRUE.
Come on Tom. It's time to make it right. The RE model explains the tilt of the moon just fine. At this point it's entirely clear. I'm not expecting you to give up on FE over it, but I do expect you to admit that the RE model has a perfectly accurate explanation for the angle of the moon's tilt.
ICST, you and the author of that paper say that the 238,900 mile high moon points the same way, whether the sun is one foot away from the earth or 92.96 million miles away from the earth. The angle of the phase will never change.Tom, I'm glad you aren't abandoning the discussion.
Right Angled Triangle Calculator: https://www.easycalculation.com/trigonometry/triangle-angles.php
Select "I want to calculate Angle and Hypotenuse side."
(https://www.easycalculation.com/images/angle.jpg)
Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 92960000
angle b = 89.8528 degrees
Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 9296000
angle b = 88.5279 degrees
Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 929600
angle b = 75.5873
Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 92960
angle b = 21.261799999999994
Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 9296
angle b = 2.2283999999999935
What am I doing incorrectly here?
m = <Dm*cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), Dm*cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), Dm*sin(ELm)>If you object to the part of the math where we showed the distances are not necessary in this calculation, just forget we ever mentioned it. There's the math done with the actual distances. Can you accept it now?
s = <Ds*cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), Ds*cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), Ds*sin(ELs)>
where:
Dm is distance from earth to moon = 238,900 miles
Ds is distance from earth to sun = 92,960,000 miles
For my example, ELm=20.89, AZm=136.35, ELs=-0.24, AZs=294.62
m = <-160890, 154062, 85186>
s = <38726600, -84508300, -389400>
s cross m = <-7138932301000, -3236313581600, -7630242937800>
p = m cross (s cross m) = <-899841878721166000, -1835766873255628000, 1620528680300286000>
h = m cross z = <154062, 160890, 0>
p dot h = -433987971757638265212000
|p| = 2608805976556893954
|h| = 222757
(p dot h) / (|p|*|h|) = -0.74680042
taking the abs as per the convention in the paper to get the angle we want...
alpha = arccos(0.74680042) = 41.686 degrees!
The fraction of a degree we get in variance is due to different amounts of precision used in the calculations (round-off error).
(https://www.easycalculation.com/images/angle.jpg)
What am I doing incorrectly here?
m = <Dm*cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), Dm*cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), Dm*sin(ELm)>If you object to the part of the math where we showed the distances are not necessary in this calculation, just forget we ever mentioned it. There's the math done with the actual distances. Can you accept it now?
s = <Ds*cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), Ds*cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), Ds*sin(ELs)>
where:
Dm is distance from earth to moon = 238,900 miles
Ds is distance from earth to sun = 92,960,000 miles
For my example, ELm=20.89, AZm=136.35, ELs=-0.24, AZs=294.62
m = <-160890, 154062, 85186>
s = <38726600, -84508300, -389400>
s cross m = <-7138932301000, -3236313581600, -7630242937800>
p = m cross (s cross m) = <-899841878721166000, -1835766873255628000, 1620528680300286000>
h = m cross z = <154062, 160890, 0>
p dot h = -433987971757638265212000
|p| = 2608805976556893954
|h| = 222757
(p dot h) / (|p|*|h|) = -0.74680042
taking the abs as per the convention in the paper to get the angle we want...
alpha = arccos(0.74680042) = 41.686 degrees!
The fraction of a degree we get in variance is due to different amounts of precision used in the calculations (round-off error).
(https://www.easycalculation.com/images/angle.jpg)
What am I doing incorrectly here?
Using a diagram which does not have Angle b marked upon it? I can see a Greek symbol, but no b.
2. Using a right-angle triangle, when the relationship between Earth, Moon and Sun (assuming you mean each is at a point of the triangle) is mostly never this type of triangle.
3. Doing calculations for the Sun being a short distance away, which it is not. You can prove this for yourself, and prove your calculation of this to be moot by ...
Going outside on a day when you can see Sun and Moon. Hold up a ball in front of the Moon, such that the ball is in sunlight. Note how the illuminated part of the Moon and the ball match, showing that they have the same source of illumination, and that that source is a considerable distance away (since the Moon is approx 240k miles away, it must, by definition, be significantly farther than this).
Quotem = <Dm*cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), Dm*cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), Dm*sin(ELm)>If you object to the part of the math where we showed the distances are not necessary in this calculation, just forget we ever mentioned it. There's the math done with the actual distances. Can you accept it now?
s = <Ds*cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), Ds*cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), Ds*sin(ELs)>
where:
Dm is distance from earth to moon = 238,900 miles
Ds is distance from earth to sun = 92,960,000 miles
For my example, ELm=20.89, AZm=136.35, ELs=-0.24, AZs=294.62
m = <-160890, 154062, 85186>
s = <38726600, -84508300, -389400>
s cross m = <-7138932301000, -3236313581600, -7630242937800>
p = m cross (s cross m) = <-899841878721166000, -1835766873255628000, 1620528680300286000>
h = m cross z = <154062, 160890, 0>
p dot h = -433987971757638265212000
|p| = 2608805976556893954
|h| = 222757
(p dot h) / (|p|*|h|) = -0.74680042
taking the abs as per the convention in the paper to get the angle we want...
alpha = arccos(0.74680042) = 41.686 degrees!
The fraction of a degree we get in variance is due to different amounts of precision used in the calculations (round-off error).
Why doesn't the angle of the moon's phase change with that math when we place the sun one mile away from the earth and 92,960,000 miles away from the earth?
Surely the angle of the phase must change between those huge ranges.
Angle b is the top left angle in that image. It changes when we change the distance to the sun (the adjacent side).
But the distance to the sun does not change in reality.
The angle changes when the distance to the sun changes.
Yes, but the distance to the sun does not change in reality.QuoteGo outside on a day when you can see Sun and Moon. Hold up a ball in front of the Moon, such that the ball is in sunlight. Note how the illuminated part of the Moon and the ball match, showing that they have the same source of illumination, and that that source is a considerable distance away (since the Moon is approx 240k miles away, it must, by definition, be significantly farther than this).
How would that prove how far away the sun is or provide support for a Round Earth?
It proves the Sun to be much farther away than the Moon. If it was not, then the illumination would not match. Of itself, I'm not sure it forms a single definitive proof of a globe. But you shouldn't consider these things in isolation. The combination of many different forms of proof should be considered together. For instance, we see the Moon pass between us and the Sun at solar eclipses; therefore, the Sun is farther away than the Moon. We see Venus and Mercury transit over the Sun. Therefore, the Sun is farther away than both of these bodies at these points in their orbits.
The moon and sun are often only seen during the day when they are on on opposite skies,
Incorrect. My sample 'ball held up to the Moon' photos were taken with the Moon just West of South, and with the Sun rising in the East. Roughly 90 degrees between.
Holding up a ball between them
Nobody is suggesting that. I said, once again, "hold up a ball IN FRONT OF the Moon"
In terms of your triangle, with Sun, Moon and Earth at the three points, you're holding the ball up along the side connecting Moon and Earth.
would create some kind of gibbous moon, to which you can angle, rise above or below you, rotate slightly around, to try and match with the moon. It is totally invalid and does nothing to provide insight on the matter.
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.
Is this why you're persistently refusing to actually do it?
It tells us that the Moon and the Ball are illuminated from the same light source. It tells us that the distance between Moon and Ball are very small compared to distance to Sun. If the Sun were close, or between the two, the illumination would differ.
I don't know what you mean by "unnatural perspective angles away from the sun" - are you referring back to that Moon phase photo with the arrow upon it? I tried to get you to progress with an experimental method on that, but you ignored my post.
The readers can decide for themselves if arrows in space would not point at what they are pointing at
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.I understand that your intuition is telling you that the distance to the sun is a critical part of this issue. I would hope that you can recognize that intuition is often wrong and doesn't prove anything.
There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario meets our reality.
The readers can decide for themselves if arrows in space would not point at what they are pointing at
Why doesn't the angle of the moon's phase change with that math when we place the sun one mile away from the earth and 92,960,000 miles away from the earth?
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.I understand that your intuition is telling you that the distance to the sun is a critical part of this issue. I would hope that you can recognize that intuition is often wrong and doesn't prove anything.
There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario meets our reality.
The readers can decide for themselves if arrows in space would not point at what they are pointing at
Furthermore, you MUST recognize that we are discussing how things work under RE, and in RE, the sun is 93 million miles away from us - It is not 1 mile away, nor is it unknown. We are testing the model as it stands, and the model say the sun averages around 93 million miles away. Nobody cares what happens when the sun is 1 mile away because we're not testing that. Nobody is asking us to determine the distance to the sun and moon here as those are already established under the RE model. We are testing them.
Under the existing RE model, the sun is 93 million miles away, and the moon is 240 thousand miles away. The sun is understood to be MUCH farther from us than the moon is. Because of this, the triangle between the observer, sun, and moon is very nearly a line. The edge of the triangle between the earth and the moon is a fraction of a percent of the length of the other edges. What this means is the angle of the light coming from the sun to the observer is very nearly the same as the light from the sun to the moon. To your eyes, you won't be able to tell the difference.
Because of this, the "hold up a ball" method (which you steadfastly refuse to even try) shows us almost exactly the same lighting as the moon. Hold up a ball and check it. If this works exactly like I've said it does, the lighting on the ball should match the lighting on the moon. If the lighting on the ball is very different, then you have proven that something in this RE model I have described is incorrect.
I'm telling you exactly what the RE model says. What do you suppose gives you the authority to claim that the RE model does not say what the RE model says? That's all we're talking about here. The RE model says the lighting on the ball should match the lighting of the moon very closely. Stop misrepresenting the RE model.
Nick, in that explanation the video is using the analogy of standing in the middle of a very long room or hallway. When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.
Tom B understands why the moon's phase looks the way it does,One might start to suspect that he is deliberately distracting the conversation in an effort to win a debate at the cost of the truth.
(taken from the other site)Quote from: Tom BishopNick, in that explanation the video is using the analogy of standing in the middle of a very long room or hallway. When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.
He just keeps making up imaginary or irrelevant factors in order to confuse himself.
Tom B understands why the moon's phase looks the way it does,One might start to suspect that he is deliberately distracting the conversation in an effort to win a debate at the cost of the truth.
(taken from the other site)Quote from: Tom BishopNick, in that explanation the video is using the analogy of standing in the middle of a very long room or hallway. When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.
He just keeps making up imaginary or irrelevant factors in order to confuse himself.
I understand that your intuition is telling you that the distance to the sun is a critical part of this issue. I would hope that you can recognize that intuition is often wrong and doesn't prove anything.
Furthermore, you MUST recognize that we are discussing how things work under RE, and in RE, the sun is 93 million miles away from us - It is not 1 mile away, nor is it unknown. We are testing the model as it stands, and the model say the sun averages around 93 million miles away. Nobody cares what happens when the sun is 1 mile away because we're not testing that.
Because of this, the "hold up a ball" method (which you steadfastly refuse to even try) shows us almost exactly the same lighting as the moon. Hold up a ball and check it. If this works exactly like I've said it does, the lighting on the ball should match the lighting on the moon. If the lighting on the ball is very different, then you have proven that something in this RE model I have described is incorrect.
I'm telling you exactly what the RE model says. What do you suppose gives you the authority to claim that the RE model does not say what the RE model says? That's all we're talking about here.
The RE model says the lighting on the ball should match the lighting of the moon very closely. Stop misrepresenting the RE model.
Tom B understands why the moon's phase looks the way it does,
(taken from the other site)Quote from: Tom BishopNick, in that explanation the video is using the analogy of standing in the middle of a very long room or hallway. When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.
He just keeps making up imaginary or irrelevant factors in order to confuse himself.
The "hold-up the ball" method is subject to close-range perspective effects.
Like what? What are these 'effects'?
Are you telling us that the moon is also close to the earth?
In comparison to the distance to the Sun, it's very close. And that's the point.
If the moon is far away, as in the RE model, then perspective should affect it less and less, since the observer isn't able to change distance ratio in viewing positions as much.
What ARE you talking about?
Show us where in text books about the Round Earth model where it says that all of the celestial bodies are projected onto a screen close above the observer's heads.
The "hold-up the ball" method is subject to close-range perspective effects.
Like what? What are these 'effects'?
Rubix Cube Example
Imagine that we had a giant solved Rubix Cube suspended one foot above our heads. When we look up we can see its white underside. Now imagine that the Rubix Cube slowly recedes away from us into the distance. We will quickly see one of the colored sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. The white bottom of the cube will disappear and you will only see it from the colored side.
Now imagine that we have a giant solved Rubix Cube 10,000 feet above us. It is directly over us. When the Rubix Cube recedes away from us into the distance it will take much longer for us to see the colored side of the Rubix Cube and for the white underside to go away.
In comparison to the distance to the Sun, it's very close. And that's the point.
Nobody said anything about them being 'projected'
If you have a ball suspended one foot above your head and walk three feet away from it, you can see much more of the ball than if it were 10,000 feet in the air and you walked three feet away from it. Can we agree with that?
Yes, but that has no bearing on what the ball experiment is intended to show. Perspective, and how much of each ball you can see, measured to the Nth degree, has no relevance.
This was a similar example given in another thread: ...
Since the ball is close to you, it is possible to shift your position slightly and see more of the ball or get it to form positions and angles than it would be if the ball were much further away.
That doesn't matter. The amount you can see of each is irrelevant to the purpose of the experiment
The Authors of the paper in question say that celestial bodies are projected onto a plane above the observer.
And you don't get what is being referred to, do you? If you were to draw, describe or imagine a sphere around the Earth, a spherical plane, each object in the sky has a position, a set of co-ordinates on that imaginary sphere. These co-ordinates remain, regardless of the distance at which you imagine the sphere. This could be termed 'projection' onto that sphere, but c'mon, Tom, even school children can get this concept.
ICST made a video about that paper too. The moon and sun are projected onto a plane close above the observers head.
That doesn't matter. The amount you can see of each is irrelevant to the purpose of the experiment
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.
There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario meets our reality.
The readers can decide for themselves if an arrow in space would not point at what it is pointing at
That doesn't matter. The amount you can see of each is irrelevant to the purpose of the experiment
It is perfectly relevant. You can shift the perspective greater and easier when the ball is close than when it is far away.
If you move around, you're doing the experiment wrong.
This shows that you need to use the RET geometry rather than a dumb hallway example. The moon isn't going down a hallway in RET. It is the same distance from the observer at all times. It doesn't radically change distances from you.
I never said it did, and I've never used a hallway example. Are you confusing me with someone else?
This is also why the "holding a ball close to you" experiment is invalid to tell us much. Perspective can change drastically, very easily, when things are close to you.
If you're moving around enough to see changes on either the ball you're holding, or the Moon, you're doing the experiment wrong.
The "math" in the paper does not use the geometry of the RET model to get the result. ICST said it himself that it doesn't matter at all. Therefore it is not an RET model.
Take that up with ICST, then
The fact that you guys are searching for perspective effects that would not happen in RET, and math that doesn't even use the RET geometry, shows quite clearly and indisputably that this cannot be explained at all.
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.
There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario meets our reality.
The readers can decide for themselves if an arrow in space would not point at what it is pointing at
So, just on the ball experiment and why the light/shadow on it would be the same as on the moon.
Using that nifty calculator you provided, like you said with the moon 240000 miles away the angle to the sun works out to 69.861°, holding a ball 3 feet away in the direction of the moon the angle to the sun works out to 70°.
The ball experiment is valid and would not produce an altogether unnatural angle, only being off by 0.139°. But maybe I'm missing something in what you are saying.
But how do we get the ball to simulate the moon terminator illusion and point away from the sun? The reason that it is possible is that the ball is really close to you and you can just hold it higher in the sky and duck down beneath it, rotate around it a bit if necessary, and angle it in a way that you can get the phase to form almost any shape and get the phase to point upwards OR downwards depending on whether you are above or below it. When the ball is closer to you it is susceptible to greater perspective effects, and finding a "match" doesn't really tell us much about what is going on.You have to hold the ball in the direction of (along your site line to) the moon for the terminator to look exactly like on the moon, and it will. If you move so that you can see the ball and the moon at the same time then you are changing the geometry between you and the ball, however, you wont be changing the geometry of the ball WRT the sun, so the angle of the terminator should not change. Unless of course you move the ball such that you can no longer see the the terminator.
But how do we get the ball to simulate the moon terminator illusion and point away from the sun? The reason that it is possible is that the ball is really close to you and you can just hold it higher in the sky and duck down beneath it, rotate around it a bit if necessary, and angle it in a way that you can get the phase to form almost any shape and get the phase to point upwards OR downwards depending on whether you are above or below it. When the ball is closer to you it is susceptible to greater perspective effects, and finding a "match" doesn't really tell us much about what is going on.You have to hold the ball in the direction of (along your site line to) the moon for the terminator to look exactly like on the moon, and it will. If you move so that you can see the ball and the moon at the same time then you are changing the geometry between you and the ball, however, you wont be changing the geometry of the ball WRT the sun, so the angle of the terminator should not change. Unless of course you move the ball such that you can no longer see the the terminator.
Are you getting at that this effect is not possible with sun 93M miles away?
There exist non-Euclidean geometries that do not use Euclid's postulates.
Consider Projective Geometry. It is a form of geometry that was created empirically, rather than based on a hypothetical concept of a perfect universe. The perspective lines are finite, and meet in the distance. It is used in computer graphics and other areas.
There are a large number of other finite geometries as well, a number of which reject Elucid's parallel line postulate entirely.
To say for certain what should or should not happen in the distance would require thorough study of the world and how perspective behaves at various distances. Since the Ancient Greeks could not provide evidence for their model, that model can be discarded.
Unfortunately for you, Tom, I actually now about these things.
The Sun-Earth-Moon system in RET is not like "looking down a hallway." We can't use hallway perspective effects.Yes we can. Like I said, you're just making up irrelevant or imaginary excuses.
The sun and the moon are far away, rotating around the observer, and the same distance from the observer throughout the day in RET. They are not changing distances from the observer like the points of a hallway ceiling is. Perspective matters very little.Pick a fixed spot in the hallway. There, that was easy.
In fact, this scenario more closely matches the Flat Earth model than the Round Earth model.No, it doesn't.
The people who are proposing the hallway perspective explanation are pretty much proposing that the close Sun and Moon model of the Flat Earth is correct.Nope.
Can we agree that if the pencil is a fixed 10,000 feet away from you, that it will be much harder to see those close-range perspective effects?If the pencil is long enough (and a bigger diameter in order to be seen), then it will match what is seen of the moon.
The problem, however, is that in the moon tilt "illusion" the moon doesn't point at the sun.
IMG included
This is just the first image I found via google search, but the moon will often look something like that. It can often be seen pointing away from the sun.
Apparently. That's the 'illusion', though ...
But how do we get the ball to simulate the moon terminator illusion and point away from the sun?
You could try it for yourself, on different days, at different times, and document your results, couldn't you? Rather than dragging this out with talk of Rubik's Cubes, hallways, and such. Actually do what we've been encouraging you to do for weeks.
Do this at timed intervals, monitor how the aspect changes as the sun sets, and see how, when you can see the sun, the phase of the Moon follows it. Then extrapolate from that after the sun goes down.
The reason that it is possible is that the ball is really close to you and you can just hold it higher in the sky and duck down beneath it, rotate around it a bit if necessary, and angle it in a way that you can get the phase to form almost any shape and get the phase to point upwards OR downwards depending on whether you are above or below it. When the ball is closer to you it is susceptible to greater perspective effects, and finding a "match" doesn't really tell us much about what is going on.
I've explained this more than once. If you're doing this, you're doing it wrong. It has been explained to you multiple times what you need to do. One more time; go out in the day when you can see both sun and moon in the sky. Hold your ball at arm's length in front of the Moon. Sight along your arm so you can see both Moon and Ball close together. If you do this, you CANNOT be moving around, nor looking from different angles. There's no movement involved. Look back at my previous posts to see what it should look like.
With a ball that is held out from you, you have great freedom and range of motion to look at it from and position yourself.
... but you should not be moving around, IF you're doing the experiment the right way, Why do you insist on doing it the wrong way?
This is not the case with the RET system where the moon is the same distance away from you at all times, and you cannot position yourself around it.
The methodology that is being described for the "Do the Ball Experiment!" is literally the same as holding out a pencil parallel to the ground and then positioning your eyes (or a camera) so that the pencil seems to point upwards or downwards depending on how you are positioned in relation to it due to close-range perspective.
Sure, I will agree with you on that. When you hold out a ball three feet in front of you, it will point at the sun. Pretty simple. Light comes from the sun to the ball, therefore the light on the ball is pointing at the sun.
Tom, I am completely convinced that you are deliberately trying to distract from the facts of the case. I explained it several times, and yet you act like you cannot understand. Or perhaps that you didn't see it. You keep coming back to the same tired incredulity. It really does not matter what you believe, Tom. The math is clear.
In your little diagram, you are calculating angle A. The angle A in that diagram means literally nothing to the moon tilt illusion.
I explained this already, so acting like you didn't already know this is dishonest. If you'd like to say you didn't read it or didn't understand it, I would be willing to accept an apology, but it's right there.
After I pointed that out, I also pointed out that your argument is 100% irrelevant. We are talking about RE here, and in RE, we know the distances to the sun and moon. You don't get to just change them to try to break the math. The math works just fine even if you do try that, but that's not relevant. If the math only worked when using the correct distances to the bodies, that would be all it would need to do. And that means, your argument is nothing more than a distraction.
No more B.S. Plain and simple.
The sun is 93,000,000 miles away. The moon is 239,000 miles away. The angle this creates is 0.15 degrees at a maximum! Hold up a ball, and the light from the sun will hit that ball at an angle that differs from the angle on the moon by a whopping 0.15 degrees. No more B.S. Stop trying to trick people with your fake math and broken logic. All that matters is right here. Hold up a ball and prove us wrong, or admit that we've been right the entire time.
When you hold up a ball out in the daylight, the lit area of the ball is pointing at the sun, correct? There is no way to get around it. The ball is pointing at the sun. Any disagreement there? How, then is it possible to get the light on the ball to point away from the sun? The only way to do it is to create a close range perspective effect; very similar to what I have described earlier. Slight movements around the ball will create varying perspective effects at close quarters.
OK, find a ball, go out in the day when you can see both Sun and Moon, and show us the effects you are talking about. I/we have shown you how you should be doing the ball-moon experiment, but you keep wanting to deviate from the way it should be done.
There are no perspective effects if you sight along the line between ball and moon.
There is no other way to get it to point away from the sun. It is not some special property of the light direction. It's a close range perspective effect.
But you just said it "points at the sun" .... if you think you can get it to point away, do it for real, with a ball in the daytime, and photograph it
The whole "ball experiment" thing is a load, and does not tell us anything except of close range perspective.
How, then is it possible to get the light on the ball to point away from the sun?You answered yourself long ago.
When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.
There is no other way to get it to point away from the sun. It is not some special property of the light direction.Indeed
It's aFixed your comment to make it accurate.close rangeperspective effect.
Great. Since we agree that the illuminated portion of the ball is pointing at the sun, the only way to get the ball to not point at the sun is to do so by a perspective effect.
Now use the Round Earth geometry to show that the moon is affected by perspective in that manner, as to cause a perspective effect.
Great. Since we agree that the illuminated portion of the ball is pointing at the sun, the only way to get the ball to not point at the sun is to do so by a perspective effect.We have a saying at my house. "Once is an accident. Twice is careless. The third time was on purpose."
Now use the Round Earth geometry to show that the moon is affected by perspective in that manner, as to cause a perspective effect.
Unfortunately for you, Tom, I actually now about these things.
I have no doubt that you do.
To ICanScienceThat:
If it doesn't matter what the distance to the bodies are or the geometry of the Round Earth Theory is in the equations then it may as well be a Flat Earth model. Rowbotham said that the celestial bodies were projected onto the amtoplane in Earth Not a Globe.
A projection onto a plane above the head of the observer is already built into our model. Since the math works regardless of the actual distance to the celestial bodies, and our model predicts such a projection, unlike the Round Earth model, did you just provide a Flat Earth model?
The methodology that is being described for the "Do the Ball Experiment!" is literally the same as holding out a pencil parallel to the ground and then positioning your eyes (or a camera) so that the pencil seems to point upwards or downwards depending on how you are positioned in relation to it due to close-range perspective.Not really. in this case if the ball is 2 or 3 feet away from you it going to look essentially that same as if it was 30, 300, 3000, 240,000 feet/miles away etc. If you bring it down to eye level then you will see that a line normal to the terminator does indeed point at the sun. Once it's 3 feet way it going to look essentially teh same as if it were a bigger ball 240K miles away.
Right?
Can we agree that if the pencil is a fixed 10,000 feet away from you, that it will be much harder to see those close-range perspective effects?Sure.
Yes?
This is why the "ball experiment" is fallacious. It doesn't tell us anything about what is going on with the moon. We can't be expected to think that if we were pointing a pencil at the sun, that we could get it to angle away from the sun without taking advantage of close range perspective effects.No, see above.
What follows is a questioning of the validity of this ball experiment. We already know that the illuminated portion of the ball will point at the sun -- like a pencil pointing at the sun. That we can get it to *not* point at the sun, like we can get a pencil to *not* point at the sun, by taking advantage of close range perspective effects, seems to be illegitimate.Again, this is not a close-range perspective thing, unless, as I detailed above, you get very, very close.
Also, one important point, the moon does change angle when it gets closer to the sun and changes its elevation above the horizon. It is not stuck in one permanent perspective angle, as Bill seemes to imply.I resent the intent of this straw man Tom. I never suggested or 'implied' any such thing. I honestly don't think you even inferred it, you're just using it to introduce a point you think you can argue better. However, this changes nothing. Neither does that idiotic video you posted above. It is just yet another straw man and has not the tiniest thing to do with the situation we were talking about.
Actually that video shows the terminator illusion just fine. And distance does NOT matter.Also, one important point, the moon does change angle when it gets closer to the sun and changes its elevation above the horizon. It is not stuck in one permanent perspective angle, as Bill seemes to imply.I resent the intent of this straw man Tom. I never suggested or 'implied' any such thing. I honestly don't think you even inferred it, you're just using it to introduce a point you think you can argue better. However, this changes nothing. Neither does that idiotic video you posted above. It is just yet another straw man and has not the tiniest thing to do with the situation we were talking about.
In that inane video you can see quite clearly the lines look parallel 3 feet away. It's not until you have the drawing at camera level and an inch or two away do we see the perspective effect you are talking about - which still has nothing to do with our discussion. Not whatsoever. If anything, it weakens your position considerably. You honestly can't expect me to believe you think that video and what we were talking about are related. If you do, the implications are not very flattering to you.
... Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
Tom, your dishonesty continues to astound me. You continue to post as if what you were saying meant anything when it's nothing more than gibberish. You simultaneously ignore each of my key points.
How about you tell us, "why does the light on the moon match the light on the ball?"
You found some math which does not use the geometry of the Earth and Moon model, and then present it as a Round Earth model.
Bill, the "Ball Experiment" is a close range perspective effect. There is no way to get the ball to not point at the sun without taking advantage of close range perspective effects.
Nobody is suggesting the ball experiment should get the ball to point away from the sun except you. Nobody suggests that should form part of the experiment except you. As I said earlier, if you're trying to do this, you're doing the experiment wrong.
Take a look at this animation:
Why are you citing animations? Why aren't you taking a tennis, base or billiard ball outside and doing this for yourself, rather than trying to propose your variation on it?
The only way to get it to point upwards and away from the sun is to take advantage of close range perspective effects. This is what I am being asked to do.
No, it will not point away from the sun. The centre of the illuminated portion of the ball will always point toward the sun. You cannot change that.
If you think you can get it to look as though it is pointing away from the Sun, do the experiment yourself and show us your result. If the result has you looking at the ball without the moon also visible immediately behind the ball, you're doing the experiment wrong. That is not the methodology of the experiment.
Why am I being asked to do that? It shows nothing about what is occurring to the moon or anything about the nature of the occurrence.
Yes, it does.
It will need to be shown that perspective effects can affect the geometry of the Round Earth model. Unlike drastic differences in distance ratios at close range; when something is far away from you, it is harder for those close range perspective effects to occur. You would need to travel significant distances to make that happen, in ratio with the new distances.
Yes, you can move around your ball, but you can't move around the Moon to the same degree. Got it. That's the whole point of the methodology described. To align your sight line with the ball along the same sight line that connects you and the moon. If you move around, you're not looking at the ball along this sight line
The ball should be held between your eye or camera and the Moon, and you should be sighting along the continuation of the imaginary line connecting ball and Moon, but such that you can see both. If you were exactly on the line, the ball would cover the Moon.
There's no movement involved. The only place to look from is along this line. It's not an experiment in motion, it's an experiment to derive a static viewpoint from one observation position, and one only
Under the Round Earth Theory both the sun and moon are far away and are at equal distance from you at all times. They do not change distances radically from you, as the camera changes in relation to the ball in the above animation as compared to the distance to the ball.
That's not the methodology for this experiment. The camera should not change in relation to the ball. See my italics above.
It should be shown that the geometry of the Round Earth model can create such perspective effects.
You keep insisting on some "ball experiment" which is clearly using close range perspective to get the ball to point away from the sun.
No. No. No.
No.
NOBODY is suggesting this except you. Everybody else is telling you to do the ball experiment BECAUSE the illuminated portion of the ball points AT the Sun. That it matches the illuminated portion of the Moon, but only IF you do the experiment properly, and look at both along the same sight line.
You keep trying to do something else with the experiment, but if you did that, you would be doing the experiment wrong.
"Yup, that's what's happening to the moon in the sky. Proof!" <-- Deceptive argument
The problem, however, is that in the moon tilt "illusion" the moon doesn't point at the sun.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-25c937f8e40c4e14b6cba1486c0ceabe-c)
This is just the first image I found via google search, but the moon will often look something like that. It can often be seen pointing away from the sun.
From the paper we were talking about: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdfTom, you have already shown that you could not possibly understand the math in that paper, so I have no idea why your trying to quote stuff from it. What is shown in this diagram and the other diagrams in that paper are only possible with the accepted RE model of the solar system. This topic is about whether or not the full moon was possible on a flat earth, and you have, yet again, dragged if off course though a series of straw man positions. By inspection of the current flat earth model you can easily see that a full moon is not possible on one of those flat earths.
(https://i.imgur.com/dBeuy9C.png)
Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)
The problem, however, is that in the moon tilt "illusion" the moon doesn't point at the sun.
I would also like to point out that you are intentionally trying to deceive people with that animation. Those camera movements are not necessary. It could have been seen had the camera simply been lowered and panned up and to the left.
Take a look at this animation:
https://media.giphy.com/media/QLNnW3c2d2iGEPIICh/giphy.gif
QuoteAssuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)
QuoteAssuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)
The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. Why aren't you listening? We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.
How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?
QuoteAssuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)
The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. Why aren't you listening? We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.
How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?
We have went over this many many times. Trigonometry is a math largely based on ratios. If the ratio is the same then the distances don't matter. In terms of the degree of the angles, SIN, COS, and TAN.
A right triangle with opposite sides length of one inch and an adjacent side of 3 inches will have the same angles as a right triangle with an opposite side of 1 billion miles and an adjacent side of 3 billion miles.
The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. Why aren't you listening? We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.I see your straw man again Tom.
How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?
These are clearly close-range perspective effects.No, they're just perspective effects.
The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.No, you just need to be viewing from the right angle.
These are clearly close-range perspective effects.No, they're just perspective effects.QuoteThe only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.No, you just need to be viewing from the right angle.
wait can you explain the tides to me? helpA full perspective theory is still in its infancy, but right now I will point you to the "Why do we se the same face of the moon" thread we had recently (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10013.0).Again with the Ancient Greek stuff. I'm trying to be zetetic here. I'm not assuming any Greek theory. Have you tried to model your Rubik's cube illustration. I have. It doesn't work. You're the self-claimed empiricist. Don't just say it works. Show it.
In the Flat Earth model, if the moon is above the altitude of the sun, the sun will see its underside. If the moon is below the altitude of the sun, the sun will see the top of the moon. Your idea of how the relation works in Ancient Greek Perspective Theory would need to be first demonstrated true, before we can say that perspective operates or scales in that manner.
For the moon to be full, it can't be out of alignment from the sun. Just like you argued for RE. The geometry based on the claimed form and magnitude "assumptions" of FE wiki make it impossible. If that's not true -- if it's possible -- show how. That's the point of this topic.
What angle?The same angle (roughly) as in the hallway, just on a bigger scale. You do understand how 'scale' works correct?
How does this make sense if the moon and the sun are far away and don't change distance to the observer?See above remark. Here's another factor you apparently don't understand- 239k miles is "close range" compared to 93 million miles, and on a 'universe' scale, it is very "close range" perspective.
What angle?The same angle (roughly) as in the hallway, just on a bigger scale. You do understand how 'scale' works correct?
See above remark. Here's another factor you apparently don't understand- 239k miles is "close range" compared to 93 million miles, and on a 'universe' scale, it is very "close range" perspective.
On the topic of the "ball experiment":
Look at what Mick West is doing at MetaBunk (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/page-2) (click to enlarge):
img
He angles the camera close and right up to the ball to get it to point away from the sun:
img
These are clearly close-range perspective effects.
What is? Please explain what 'effect' you think we're looking at
The sunlight area on the ball is pointing at the sun. No one can doubt this. The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.
What angle? The perspective of the moon changes:
img
How does this make sense if the moon and the sun are far away and don't change distance to the observer?
Tom, Can you show us why a "significant" (as it compares to the aforementioned distances involved) change in distance while in motion is necessary in order to have a perspective effect?
What angle? The perspective of the moon changes:
img
How does this make sense if the moon and the sun are far away and don't change distance to the observer?
The graph shows how aspects of the Moon change depending on location of observer and its position in the sky. It's not a graph of how the Moon changes over the period of (say) one night.
However, this makes sense because, for the umpteenth time, you, the observer, are at one point of a triangle. The triangle is formed by you, the observer, the Moon and the Sun at the three points.
One face of the Moon is always illuminated along the imaginary triangle side connecting Moon and Sun. As the Moon moves around the Earth, this illuminated portion changes, as the same side of the Moon faces the Earth at all times. This gives us the phases of the Moon.
This is why the image has the 'altitude' as one axis of the chart - that's actually the observer's LATITUDE on the Earth, isn't it?
I have a desktop globe, I have a little model Moon to go with it, I could make a 3D model to show you, but .... why should I, when folks here ask you to do the most simple of experiments (hold a small sports ball up to the Moon), but you apparently don't make the effort?
The moon is only going to shift over you about 2 degrees due to the rotation of the earth/moon in the Round Earth system, and the sun much less than that.
Top-Down View:
img
To have a full moon for everyone on earth on the same day, the moon needs to be directly above the sun, if it's to the side, eve slightly, different parts of the world would see a significantly different fullness of the moon. I don't see how this works as the sun and moon aren't apparently near each other on days with a full moon, they are generally the farthest away from each other on full moon days. Is there something I'm missing here? Could a diagram be generated that makes sense?
On the topic of the "ball experiment":
Look at what Mick West is doing at MetaBunk (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/page-2) (click to enlarge):
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100811-h4i9p-jpg.22884/)
He angles the camera close and right up to the ball to get it to point away from the sun:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100429-cw1d0-jpg.22882/)
These are clearly close-range perspective effects.
The sunlight area on the ball is pointing at the sun. No one can doubt this. The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.
Perspective matters less and less at further distances, and in RET the sun and moon does not change distance radically from the observer over the day. It is at the same distance from the observer at all times. Show a to-scale model of the earth-moon-sun that shows this perspective effect, and that it is possible for the perspective to change (https://i.imgur.com/dBeuy9C.png).
The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N
And this angle will be smaller for observers separated by less latitude? Y/N
So the observers at 45N and 45S will be looking along sightlines with a difference of around one degree? They're essentially looking along the same sightline to the Moon? Y/N
The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N
YesQuoteAnd this angle will be smaller for observers separated by less latitude? Y/N
The observer is in the same poisition and the earth is rotating between positions.
No, we started out talking about three simultaneous observers, all looking at the Moon at the same instant. One on the equator, one at 45N and one at 45S. There can be no rotation of either Earth or Moon, since no time has elapsed. Your measurement assumes the difference between observer positions to be the full Earth diameter. It will be less than this for the two observers at 45N and 45S. Y/NQuoteSo the observers at 45N and 45S will be looking along sightlines with a difference of around one degree? They're essentially looking along the same sightline to the Moon? Y/N
At 45 N and 45 S, the circle that the earth turns on is smaller than the equator I am using, and it will be less... about ~1 degree instead of ~2 degrees
So you agree, that if the two observers sightlines differ in only one degree, that they are essentially looking along the same sightline to the Moon? Could you really tell if you were looking along a line at 50 degrees, say, as opposed to 49 or 51 degrees?
(Tom's calculation method follows)
Where is all of this perspective coming from?
(https://i.imgur.com/eBt2BUa.jpg)
OK, we've established what the system looks like from a plan view. I showed you plan and side views earlier on, or in the Crescent Moon thread.
What does this observation look like from a position BEHIND the observers?
Remember, they are looking from Earth to Moon. If you were behind their heads, looking past them to the Moon, and you could see both the globe and them in one frame, or field of view, what do you think they (and the Moon) would look like?
I suggest it would look something like this;
https://i.imgur.com/eBt2BUa.jpg
The sightlines of the outer observers aren't converging by any more than half a degree or so. We've just established that, haven't we? They only look like they are, the same way as parallel railway lines look like they're converging.
However, the ORIENTATION of the observers is clearly different, isn't it?
There is only one observer.
But you just agreed, a couple of posts ago, right above this, that there were two - when you worked out the angular difference between them, with one on one side of the Earth, and one on the other. Or are you saying that only one person can look at the Moon at any one time, and nobody else can at the same time?QuoteThe 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N
Yes
There is only one observer.
But you just agreed, a couple of posts ago, right above this, that there were two - when you worked out the angular difference between them, with one on one side of the Earth, and one on the other. Or are you saying that only one person can look at the Moon at any one time, and nobody else can at the same time?QuoteThe 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N
Yes
There is one observer. There are 2 positions because the earth allegedly rotates. Those are the maximum angles the observer can view the moon from due to the rotation of the earth.
You are at the equator looking at the Western Horizon and the moon is passing by from behind overhead, setting vertically into the Western horizon.Code: [Select]|
|
V
---------
west
Now you rotate the image by 90 degrees to simulate what would happen at the North Pole.Code: [Select]|
west | <---------
|
Now the moon seems to be passing over the North Pole...
At 45 degrees N or S the moon is also passing overhead too far North or South, if one were to rotate the image 45 degrees left or right. Rotating the image is not enough to simulate the curvature of the earth.
Really? Ok show us.Tom, Can you show us why a "significant" (as it compares to the aforementioned distances involved) change in distance while in motion is necessary in order to have a perspective effect?Geometry works in ratios. Look at the animation I posted in my previous post. (https://media.giphy.com/media/cd5bmYAK0DrrO0BP3i/giphy.gif) If the laptop screen is far from the observer those same motions are not going to cause the same effect. The screen would not change at all.
Look at the animation I posted on the last page (https://media.giphy.com/media/QLNnW3c2d2iGEPIICh/giphy.gif). If the white surface were much further from the observer, those slight motions would not cause the same effect. The surface would hardly change in perspective at all.Can you show us that one too? Hold the camera the same distance away as when it starts, and only move down, remaining level left-right, and looking up and to the left.
In an example of a pencil pointed horizontally; in order to get a pencil to change perspective and point in a different direction you will need to move around it radically in comparison to your distance to that pencil.You've taken the globe distances and scaled them down. And?
If that pencil is 10,000 feet away from the observer, your movements would have to be of a much larger magnitude. Your same movements will not change the pencil to perspective. Bill agreed with that. Do you disagree?I guess if you believe the (globe) distance from the sun to the moon is 239,000 miles, and Earth is roughly 7billion miles away from the two. Is that what you believe the distances are in the globe model? Do you have a source stating those distances?
The moon is only going to shift over you about 2 degrees due to the rotation of the earth/moon in the Round Earth system, and the sun much less than that.And? We're talking about perspective involving the angles the moon is view at during certain periods of its orbit. Why are you attempting to derail and/or confuse yourself further?
We can't just rotate the scene.
Why not? I've shown a real photograph of the Moon, not a diagram, with my dummy Earth in front of it, with three stick men on the surface, at what would be approx 55N (middle), 10N (left) and 80N. This is roughly equivalent to 45S, 0, 45N. I can't travel to the equator to take photos for this thread.
If the Moon, at any one instant in time, is visible in this orientation for the observer at 55N, then the observers at the other points, at exactly the same time, MUST see it tilted 45 degrees left or right, because they are orientated that way, some 45 degrees off the orientation of the middle observer. The photo shows the Moon in the orientation appropriate for me, the actual photographer, standing upright. If I leaned the camera one side or the other, the Moon's orientation in the photo would change. Since the side observers already have this rotation, then if they photographed the Moon whilst upright, they would capture it in the same orientation as I did by rotating the camera.
You've already agreed that they are all looking, broadly, along the same line of sight, with only a degree or so difference.QuoteYou are at the equator looking at the Western Horizon and the moon is passing by from behind overhead, setting vertically into the Western horizon.
But we're not looking at its passing, simply how it appears at one instant in time.
Now you rotate the image by 90 degrees to simulate what would happen at the North Pole.
Now the moon seems to be passing over the North Pole...
Again, only looking at one instant in time. Not considering its movement, or direction at present, simply how it appears in the sky at that one instant to the three observers.
Rotating the image is not enough to simulate the curvature of the earth.
Why not?
Here is an illustration of the moon with a green arrow to mark orientation at 45 degrees N, 0 N, and 45 Degrees South:
IMG
Photo trumps diagram.
The problem is that you need to get the moon to point away from the sun, regardless of that tilt of the horizon.
Why? I'm showing no tilt in any horizon. The horizon for each stick man in my photo is a line perpendicular to the vertical of their bodies. Image to follow to illustrate this.
The moon can be pointed away from the sun with the sun in the sky at the same time.
Can it? Please show us with a photo.
Regardless of the tilt of the horizon
What tilt?
, the moon is pointing away from the sun in the Moon Tilt Illusion.
Has anyone tried the string experiment?
We're entering the new moon phase now ...
I'll do it.
To have a full moon for everyone on earth on the same day, the moon needs to be directly above the sun, if it's to the side, eve slightly, different parts of the world would see a significantly different fullness of the moon. I don't see how this works as the sun and moon aren't apparently near each other on days with a full moon, they are generally the farthest away from each other on full moon days. Is there something I'm missing here? Could a diagram be generated that makes sense?
This is not correct. In the round earth model there is a degree of difference in which we can have a full moon without it being in the shadow of the earth.
This same degree of difference could exist in a flat earth model too but the altitude of the moon would have to be hundreds of thousands of miles above the sun which contradicts the wiki and what we observe in the real world.
The alternate theory for the flat earth was that the moon is generating its own light.
Has anyone tried the string experiment?
We're entering the new moon phase now so it'll be a week or so before the time will be ripe to try it. Maybe a picture is worth more than all these thousands of words to show that the line oriented normal to the moon's terminator is "pointing" to the sun and not off kilter as the illusion makes it appear to be.
I'll do it.
Has anyone tried the string experiment?
We're entering the new moon phase now so it'll be a week or so before the time will be ripe to try it. Maybe a picture is worth more than all these thousands of words to show that the line oriented normal to the moon's terminator is "pointing" to the sun and not off kilter as the illusion makes it appear to be.
I'll do it.
i've tried it on both crescent and gibbous phases, but i couldn't figure out a easy way to take an image of the results.
The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N
Yes. The image, as I am using it here, is assuming two observers on the equator. At 45 N and 45 S, the circle that the earth turns on is smaller than the equator, and it will be less... about ~1 degree instead of ~2 degrees.
Updated Image, Top-Down View:
IMG
I'm going to look at Stellarium to find a time/date when I should be able to see this illusion, take note of the moon and sun elevations and azimuths and then set up poles aligned with where the sun and moon will be. Stretch the string taught across the top of the poles and then take a couple of panoramics: 1 aligned with the horizon and 1 panning at the angle of the string.
That'll be the predictive model. Then to wait for the actual date and see if the results are the same.
Any comments, suggestions or critiques?
Thanks for getting some video of this. Here is my opinion of this:
Isn't that just the close range ball-perspective example, just with a line that extends outwards? The ball on the stick that is at an unnatural perspective angle pointing away from the sun suggests pretty clearly that this is, in fact, the same experiment.
Isn't that just the close range ball-perspective example, just with a line that extends outwards?
So what if it is a "close range ball-perspective example"? What does that tell us?
The ball on the stick that is at an unnatural perspective angle pointing away from the sun suggests pretty clearly that this is, in fact, the same experiment.
This is great work Bobby. Still puzzling about why it occurs, or in what sense it really is an illusion.
I made up an artificial Moon which will better illustrate shadows than the baseball previously used;
(https://i.imgur.com/f7SoysR.jpg)
Different day, different month, same result. Artificial Moon held up in sunlight on Earth matches the Moon in the sky. No "perspective effects" involved
You are likely creating a perspective effect that points upwards when you hold it at that location.
This is great work, Bobby.Just to add, I saw this illusion for myself this evening. I could see a crescent moon to my left, fairly high in the sky. The sun was setting to my right so was fairly low in the sky and to the naked eye it didn’t look like a line perpendicular to the terminator would point at the sun. So I got a piece of string and stretched it between them and, sure enough, it lined up perfectly
I don’t know what close range perspective effect means. The original question was how come the terminator of the moon doesn’t line up with where the sun is. If the moon is being lit by the sun then it should. Your experiment proves that even though it may look like there is no alignment, a straight line between the moon and the sun does line up and the apparent lack of alignment is in fact an optical illusion. This is another good example why the FE premise of trusting one’s senses is flawed. Our senses our limited and they can be tricked.
Also, if this WAS a problem then it would be a problem for the FE moon too which is also lit by the sun in most FE models.
It wouldn't be 100%.
I disagree. My diagram was very poor. Maybe this one will be more clear. There is no where on the black line in which you would see a dark part of the moon. The only parts of the moon which you would be able to see from that far away would be lit by the sun.
The only place from which you could see 100% of the moon lit by the sun in that diagram would be from directly below the sun, and that's assuming you could penetrate the light of the sun and see through the sun itself.
This is the same sort of geometric objection to being able to see 100% full moon from round earth. The alignment that that would require puts the earth in the path of the sun and causes an eclipse, so you can't see a 100% full moon. The moon has to be off axis, and even though that's only 0.52° and the moon may be 99.9% illuminated, there will still be a slight terminator due to that non-alignment.
Fine.
But that applies to flat earth too. Even in the extreme shown in your diagram, in which the moon is many times the altitude of the sun, anyone who is off axis from that alignment will be off axis from seeing the 100% full moon. The arrangement of earth-sun-moon is just in a different order, but it's the same geometric dilemma. You could probably come up with a theoretical distance for which a 32-mile wide moon can be above the sun such that you can find a spot on earth below the sun that is less than 0.52° off axis, but then that's going to be daytime for the observer. To be off axis and still on the night side of earth, and make that angle <0.52°, you're talking about a moon that's 500,000 - 600,000 miles higher than the sun. Really?
You can't have your geometry issues with round earth full moon impossibilities and casually ad hoc them away for flat earth too.