[stanlee]

both models? FE and RE?
why would the moon rotate due to east/west displacement?

[stanlee]

the line separating the black half of the moon in your diagram remains horizontal to the horizon in the flat earth scenario, but not in the round earth scenario.

Now you've created an artificial "up" with the vertical horizon. It's called a "horizon" because it's horizontal. Changing the manner it which it is presented on the page doesn't fix that.

Howerer, putting the "hill" between the observers does change the picture substantially, so that you now have two entirely different situations. In the FE situation the observer always has the same orientation with respect to the "top" and the "bottom" of the moon. The RE observer doesn't. Which is my point. Thank you for presenting it graphically.

It would have made an even clearer demonstration if you had used a smaller radius for the earth, allowing even more curvature in the diagram. That would get us even closer to a "Norway" versus "New Zealand" representation, which is where this all began.

With regard to the "doodad taped to the ceiling" demonstration, please think a bit more about that demonstration. I'm hoping that eventually the light bulb will go on and you'll be able to see that it is another repeat of Tom's argument. Maybe do a thought experiment with the card suspended vertically in the air, then you move across a planar surface to any place you choose, then report back on the orientation of the card that you perceive with respect to "top" and "bottom".

I’m not the one having trouble getting the light bulb screwed in.

Look at the Moon, notice the lack of depth perception, it looks like flat disc, because that’s what a sphere looks like from a fair distance away, it has a front that we see and a back that we don’t.

As to your suggestion of taping the card on edge. This would expose the thinnest face of the card, one that has no identifiable features as the face of the Moon. Also, because it’s so thin, it would also be exposing two different faces (the picture on one and the numbers on the other).

Are people in the South looking at a different side of the Moon? No… Do you know why? Because once side of the Moon always faces away from the surface of the Earth, and the other side always faces towards it. Taping the card on edge would not match any model, FE or RE, so it’s pointless to do it that way.

Again, I failed to realize that difficulty of 3 dimensional spatial relationships was going to be an issue. I’ll redo the observation and pics using a color coded sphere as soon as I get the chance.

So, tell me, is there difference standing to look at the Moon compared to leaning back in a chair to look at it? No?
Like if, lying on back and suddenly jump up to my feet, is this Moon going to flip over? No?
How about if I was lying on my stomach? No?
The position of the observer’s body is irrelevant. The only difference, is the angle the observer has to look up at, that is how far they have to tilt their heads back.

As for the diagram, redone as requested, using Kristiansand, Norway located at 58 degrees N and Campbell Island, New Zealand at 52 degrees S, as reference points and placing the observers at those approximate Latitudes, while extending the visible curvature of the RE to both the N and S pole. The FE model, including lawn chairs, is super imposed in orange.



So, apparently, Flat Earth people are smarter, instead of standing there craning their necks to gaze up at the stars, they recline comfortably in lawn furniture (while possibly sipping on Mai Tais).

[6or1/2Dozen]

both models? FE and RE?
why would the moon rotate due to east/west displacement?

Yes, on both models. On the Equator, it flips 180 degrees throughout the day, you only need 1 observer to see it, since the Earth rotates. (Or the Moon circles).

Just replace N & S with E & W in any of the drawings and that's the basic concept.

The effect is reduced at higher latitudes.

[6or1/2Dozen]

the line separating the black half of the moon in your diagram remains horizontal to the horizon in the flat earth scenario, but not in the round earth scenario.

Actually, that divides the front and back of the moon, it's not a line, it's a circle.

 It is not perpendicular to either an FE or RE surface, nobody can ever see it because there's a 1/2 a moon in the way.

We can't see the black half, it's the side of the Moon that faces away from everyone.

[stanlee]

granted, but i was talking about the light side and dark side of a half moon

[6or1/2Dozen]

the line separating the black half of the moon in your diagram remains horizontal to the horizon in the flat earth scenario, but not in the round earth scenario.

Right, we're talking about the same line.

 It is not perpendicular to either an FE or RE surface, nobody can ever see it because there's a 1/2 a moon in the way.

We can't see the black half, it's the side of the Moon that faces away from everyone. It doesn't really matter what it does.

The fact that it is horizontal to the horizon only changes the elevation of the moon over the horizon. In RE, we can the moon would be low in the sky, on FE it's much more overhead.

So yes, moving the horizon does move the horizon. I don't really think that's too unexepected though and doesn't affect the observer's sense of up.

[stanlee]

we're not talking abt the same line. i'm talking abt the half moon light and dark sides, ie both halves on this side of the moon. (and yes, it just looks like a straight line of seperation)

[Tomato]

The fact that so many round earthers in this thread decided to abandon all logic because they wanted to be right about FE is entertaining.

[6or1/2Dozen]

we're not talking abt the same line. i'm talking abt the half moon light and dark sides, ie both halves on this side of the moon. (and yes, it just looks like a straight line of seperation)

The moon is the drawing is dived into quarters. The black ones make a half, that half always faces away from earth. The half that is red and green always faces the Earth.
We only ever see the red and green half (light half).

If you flip the drawing around the x-axis, so it wasn't  a side view, we would only see a red half and a green half, each in the shape of a semi circle.

[stanlee]

yes, i got that now. i was just clarifying my point was not represented in your diagram afterall although i originally misconstrued it that way.
i was just talking abt the disc that we see and the half moon.

[6or1/2Dozen]

yes, i got that now. i was just clarifying my point was not represented in your diagram afterall although i originally misconstrued it that way.
i was just talking abt the disc that we see and the half moon.

Yeah, no problem.

Do you understand now, why the Moon can be modeled as a playing card taped to the ceiling? Do you understand that you can model FE and RE surface by either standing or laying on your back?

From there it's easy to see that the view is the same from either, no matterm where you're at.

The moon flipping orientation (rotating) based on the location of the observers neither proves nor does it disprove either model.

[stanlee]

sure, i get that
but i think thats missing my point (which would be cos i haven't made it so well)
if we consider the half-moon shadow line (for want of a better term) it remains parallel to the horizon at the equator for it's entire journey across the nights sky (correct me if i'm wrong)
likewise its orientation is different at other latitudes, but remains consistent viewed from the same spot as it traverses the sky, (of course it is flipped over like a pancake, but you know what i mean)
the angular displacement between the equator and poles is exactly 90 degrees and 180 from pole to pole.
in FE i get that the image flips due to point-of-view, but why doesn't the parallel-to-horizon half moon stay parellel to the horizon at various latitudes? and would the moon flip gradually, 180 degrees, between the 'poles'?

[Ratboy]

I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone.  During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night.  If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time.  How can it face all three viewers all the time on a flat model?  If it were an automobile, one should see headlights, or tailights, side doors and undercarriage as it circles around the overhead track if it is circling the north pole. And then again we have to assume the people south of the equator are not as important and can be ignored.

[6or1/2Dozen]

sure, i get that
but i think thats missing my point (which would be cos i haven't made it so well)
if we consider the half-moon shadow line (for want of a better term) it remains parallel to the horizon at the equator for it's entire journey across the nights sky (correct me if i'm wrong)
likewise its orientation is different at other latitudes, but remains consistent viewed from the same spot as it traverses the sky, (of course it is flipped over like a pancake, but you know what i mean)
the angular displacement between the equator and poles is exactly 90 degrees and 180 from pole to pole.
in FE i get that the image flips due to point-of-view, but why doesn't the parallel-to-horizon half moon stay parellel to the horizon at various latitudes? and would the moon flip gradually, 180 degrees, between the 'poles'?

It never flips over like a pancake. It only ever presents one side (the red/green (or golden brown if you like) face) the dark side (the side of a pancake that looks a little bubbly) always faces away. It only rotates around the axis pointing directly towards us. The Moon is so very very freaking far away that we only ever are looking at the one side (and because it's tidally locked).

I think I know what your getting at - that the line separating light/dark side is parallel to FE surface but not to RE surface. And you are making a correct observation, however for that to make any difference it would have to intersect one of the viewing surface to to the North or South be visible. Since it does not intersect the surface in either model and it's an imaginary line, there's no way to determine what the shape of the viewing surface is.

In the East to West direction, the drawing in shows what it would look like from an observer standing East of the two observer in the drawing. Because the moon is so far away they still only see the underside, red/green side, but to them red would be on the right and green to the left. Someone to the West, like on the other side of your screen, would have to turn around to see the Moon. They have a different concept of left and right than you, it looks like red is on the left and green is on the right.

I don't have Visio available right now to draw with. But if you relabel look at the last drawing, relabel N and S as W and E, and change 'Equator' to 'Prime Meridian', you're now looking down at the North Pole and the people are now sanding on the Equator, looking E/W or W/E, respectively. The Moon, doesn't move, as it presents it underside to everyone at all times.

Hopefully, you starting to see how 'UP' is relative to the observer, not the shape of the surface. On RE everyone senses UP as above their heads, and can't tell other people's up is different. On FE everyone senses UP as above their heads, but can't tell other people's up is same.

I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone.  During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night.  If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time.  How can it face all three viewers all the time on a flat model?  If it were an automobile, one should see headlights, or tailights, side doors and undercarriage as it circles around the overhead track if it is circling the north pole. And then again we have to assume the people south of the equator are not as important and can be ignored.

I'm not arguing an FE model here. Only that The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

However, to your question, How can it face all three viewers all the time on a flat model?. The answer is the same way it does on a spherical model. By being both (a) 'tidally locked' and (b) very far away (way more than 3000 miles).

I've talked about how the Moon is not 3000 miles away in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

[6or1/2Dozen]

Decide a unified FE model that everyone agrees on, then try to prove or disprove. Until then all of this argueing is pointless

I'm pretty sure this thread stopped being about FE vs RE awhile ago. I've talked about how the Moon is not 3000 miles away in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

We are talking about what we are actually looking at when one looks up at the Moon, mostly about the orientation of what we perceive as the 'TOP' of it when viewed from different places. A couple people seemed to be mis-conceptualizing the geometry, not realizing [understandably] that it's so so far away, that everyone is actually always looking at one side. I call it the 'bottom' since it's the side that always points down toward Earth.

In fact it's so fantastically distant, that the inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model. Or in other words, no determination about the shape of the Earth can be made by the sole observation of the Moon appearing rotated between observers from different parts of the world.

[stanlee]

I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone.  During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night.  If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time.  ....

yeah....and couldn't we measure the angular displacement of the moons face to the horizon at all 3 points? and wouldn't that angular displacement at equal latitudes on different sides of the pole tell us something? i mean if the FE model is a green arrow moon wouldn't the angular displacement change? but for RE it's the same, isn't it?

[6or1/2Dozen]

I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone.  During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night.  If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time.  ....

yeah....and couldn't we measure the angular displacement of the moons face to the horizon at all 3 points? and wouldn't that angular displacement at equal latitudes on different sides of the pole tell us something? i mean if the FE model is a green arrow moon wouldn't the angular displacement change? but for RE it's the same, isn't it?

Yes, it would tell us something. It tells us how far away the Moon is and that it is tidally locked (the same side always faces the Earth's surface).

In reality mot much more than 50% of the Moon surface is visible at any one time (libation allows us to see 59% over the course of a Month). This means the difference in the angle is very small, like 1 degree. (Compared to the actual distance to the Moon, the North pole is like right next to the South one)

If we know the length of the base of the triangle (lets call it 4000 miles) and the difference in viewing angle at the Moon (1 degree), assuming angles 'A+B+C = 180' and knowing angles A & B are equal (thus 89.5 degrees), we can solve for the sides. Feel free to plug this into an online triangle calculator, I get 229,186.027 miles. Wiki says the average orbital distance to the Moon is average is 238,856 miles. (That ain’t half bad for napkin math!)

Visual aid, with comparison to a very close Moon (3000 miles):



{edit: if your not feeling the overhead projection, rotate your monitor so it's sideways
}
Just for fun, I also calculated how big FE would be from North Pole to Ice Wall, in order to fit the Lunar observation of only seeing 1 side, and I get just over 52 miles! (lol)

[Geometry has also previously been proven to work at a distance of up to 3000 miles]

[stanlee]

well i dunno, but you do do some nice diagrams.

[Scroogie]

This image is perfect for illustrating my point.

First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers.
Assume the brown line to be the surface of a flat earth. From any viewpoint on that flat earth an observer will perceive the black half of the moon to be the top half, or "up".

On the spherical earth, the red fellow, near the north pole, will perceive the red half of the moon to be the top half of the moon, whereas the green fellow, near the south pole, will perceive the green half to be the top half of the moon.

To the green fellow the moon is upside down with respect to what the red fellow perceives. On the flat earth the moon is never perceived with the black half as the bottom of the moon. That is, on a flat earth the moon will never be perceived as being upside down with regard to what another observer on the flat earth perceives.

That is the core of this debate - the difference between reality and flat earth belief.

[Scroogie]

I lost hope and interest in pointless arguing as soon as you said you dont understand how your approach was 2D. I came to this forum to actually find out whats the big deal, i thought theres a reason why a lot of people claim to believe in flat earth. What i found was dissapointing.

Thank you

If you were expecting brilliantly presented factual dissertations on flat earth theory, accompanied by voluminous documentation and incontrovertible evidence, I'm sorry to have to break the news to you, but such does not exist. Essentially, all you'll ever find here are a group of people of opposing views bickering over what is, in truth, a moot point.