[stanlee]

the full moon from norway:


from new zealand:



norway is close to the 'so called' north pole. i believe new zealand is further from the 'south pole', but still very much southern

oh, wow! the moon appears to 'flip' as one travels from north to south.

also, lets see some pictures of the half moon (illustrative only, as i don't know the source):

this is something like how the half moon appears close to a 'pole':


and how it might appear close to the equator:



the angle of the 'shadow line' has changed.
at the equator the line is parallel to the horizon. it does not remain horizontal to the horizon as one travels between the poles.

so when i travel from the north pole to the south pole i will see the moon flip over completely, with a horizontal shadow at the equator.
will my friend that i left behind see the moon 'flip'? or is it the horizon that i am standing on that has flipped?




(the earth is to the foreground and the half moon is further away (bad drawing))

edit: the green arrow example (below) may well 'flip' its apparent orientation as you travel across the equator, but it would remain parellel to the horizon, as it is at the equator, when you travel north or south (in FE). this simple diagram (RE) shows how the moons angular displacement to the horizon would change gradually as you travel from the equator (to +90 degrees to the north pole and -90 to the south).

[Tom Bishop]

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

[stanlee]

is your arrow parellel to the horizon? does it flip with respect to the background stars? does it flip with respect to the horizon? does it flip 180 degrees as you walk from your northern antarctic ice wall to your arctic center, or do you have to keep walking to your southern antarctic wall?  or perhaps it never flips 180 degrees?

but it rises from the eastern horizon and sets in the western.
the half moon at the equator remains horizontal?

[Tumeni]

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

Are you asserting the Moon is somewhere "between" the two observers who took the photos in the OP?

In your example, the Moon has to remain above and between the two, but that doesn't happen in real life. The Moon rises from behind/beyond the horizon, and sets behind/beyond it too, after a few hours.

[Scroogie]

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

Though on the surface (which is generally as far as FEers dare to dig) your argument seems both logical and relevant, it's not.

Though logical, it's not relevant. The relevant aspect of the moon's appearing "upside down" in New Zealand is that it appears upside down not only to the viewer, but to his surroundings, as well. Your arrow never changed orientation with regard to its surroundings, only to the viewer. This is the most important point of the subject at hand!

What appears to be the "top" of the moon in the northern hemisphere always appears to be the "bottom in the southern hemisphere. Since "UP" is always up to an observer, no matter where on earth he stands, the upside down moon is only possible on a spherical earth, never possible on a flat earth.

[Tom Bishop]

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

Though on the surface (which is generally as far as FEers dare to dig) your argument seems both logical and relevant, it's not.

Though logical, it's not relevant. The relevant aspect of the moon's appearing "upside down" in New Zealand is that it appears upside down not only to the viewer, but to his surroundings, as well. Your arrow never changed orientation with regard to its surroundings, only to the viewer. This is the most important point of the subject at hand!

What appears to be the "top" of the moon in the northern hemisphere always appears to be the "bottom in the southern hemisphere. Since "UP" is always up to an observer, no matter where on earth he stands, the upside down moon is only possible on a spherical earth, never possible on a flat earth.

You will need to provide more information on what the moon actually does in reference to its surroundings.

[inquisitive]

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

Though on the surface (which is generally as far as FEers dare to dig) your argument seems both logical and relevant, it's not.

Though logical, it's not relevant. The relevant aspect of the moon's appearing "upside down" in New Zealand is that it appears upside down not only to the viewer, but to his surroundings, as well. Your arrow never changed orientation with regard to its surroundings, only to the viewer. This is the most important point of the subject at hand!

What appears to be the "top" of the moon in the northern hemisphere always appears to be the "bottom in the southern hemisphere. Since "UP" is always up to an observer, no matter where on earth he stands, the upside down moon is only possible on a spherical earth, never possible on a flat earth.

You will need to provide more information on what the moon actually does in reference to its surroundings.

You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.

[Tom Bishop]

You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.

 I'm not going to travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.

[Tumeni]

I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.

Is/are your contributions to this thread a "thought experiment"?

[xenotolerance]

You will need to provide more information on what the moon actually does in reference to its surroundings.

In the green arrow example, the arrow is always pointing toward the Northern horizon. Even as the person moves and the arrow appears to change, they still see it as pointing North.  i.e., it flips from the perspective of the viewer, but not with regards to the horizon.

The moon's concentration of dark spots, seen in the top half of the Norway picture and the bottom half of the New Zealand picture, point to different horizons in each picture. The moon-arrow does flip with regards to the horizon, unlike the green arrow example.

[Scroogie]

You will need to provide more information on what the moon actually does in reference to its surroundings.

That's what the photos do. No one needs to go through any mental gymnastics here. The photos do the work for you.

[Ratboy]

I like the moon as the best proof for a round earth because we can see the details of the surface without a telescope.  If you use a telescope it clearly shows shadows like it is being lit by something else.
Instead of an arrow, I will again introduce the concept of a car.  It is coming from beyond the eastern horizon, passes over head and leaves beyond the western horizon.  Since you do not see the headlights coming, then the undercarriage and finally the tail lights, the only conclusion is that you are seeing the same part of the car all the time.  It is "turning" to face you.
Like Tom likes to acknowledge, if you refuse to travel, like Rowbotham, you can believe the the earth is flat and the universe jumps through hoops to give you a certain perspective.  But if you acknowledge that there are other people that matter in other countries, then you have to understand that they are not seeing the headlights, side doors, and tail lights as this "car" moves to suit you.  The only model that will allow everyone to see the same face of the moon on the same day all the time, is if it is far away and moving in a circle around a round earth.  A geocentric universe would work at this level, but only if the earth is round.  Or you can ignore that there are other people on this planet that matter as much as you.  The Zetetic way is to observe and conclude.

[Scroogie]

Before we continue this discussion we need the FEers to explain how it is that the Kiwis would even be able to see the full moon in the first place.

In a couple of days the moon will be waxing and in another couple of weeks it will be full. At that time we will be well within a couple of weeks of the spring equinox (just a week or so after it), meaning that the sun and moon will be orbiting above the flat earth very near the equator. When the moon is full it is on the opposite site of the orbital path followed by the sun (and the moon). The lit side of the full moon faces the sun and, as the two orbit around the equator that side also faces north at all times. Hence the unlit side faces south. That, just by the way, is where New Zealand is.

[Frocious]

You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.

 I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.

This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.

[Tom Bishop]

You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.

 I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.

This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.

If you have a claim to make, it is your burden to demonstrate that claim.

[Frocious]

You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.

 I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.

This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.

If you have a claim to make, it is your burden to demonstrate that claim.

All right. Refer to the photos in the OP. There is my claim.

[Tom Bishop]

You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.

 I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.

This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.

If you have a claim to make, it is your burden to demonstrate that claim.

All right. Refer to the photos in the OP. There is my claim.

Those photos were already addressed.

[Frocious]

You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.

 I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.

This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.

If you have a claim to make, it is your burden to demonstrate that claim.

All right. Refer to the photos in the OP. There is my claim.

Those photos were already addressed.

Yes, they were addressed. As was your rebuttal.

Can you show me what the moon looks like in South America?

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, they were addressed. As was your rebuttal.

If you want to make any further claims for what the moon does with reference to the local terrain, then you should provide evidence for those assertions. What we got was "well if you look at the scenery.. the moon will do this" and when questioned on that we were told to go travel the world and see for ourselves.

That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden.

Can you show me what the moon looks like in South America?

I have made no claim on that.

[Frocious]

Yes, they were addressed. As was your rebuttal.

If you want to make any further claims for what the moon does with reference to the local terrain, then you should provide evidence for those assertions. What we got was "well if you look at the scenery.. the moon will do this" and when questioned on that we were told to go travel the world and see for ourselves.

That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden.

Can you show me what the moon looks like in South America?

I have made no claim on that.

My claim, more specifically, is that you cannot claim to be an empirical researcher and then proceed to refuse to empirically research.

The southern hemisphere is within your reach. You can get there and see for yourself -- I have!

You were asked to make the trip because that is the only way you can find the evidence for yourself. Until you do (or until you realize that photographers aren't part of the conspiracy), you shouldn't be arguing here.