*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #220 on: July 15, 2018, 08:56:40 AM »
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter. It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
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'?

There is a distance field, but put a 0 into it, or cut it out of the worksheet wntirely. 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.

The phase of the moon comes in patterns. It is quite easy to predict when that next pattern will occur.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 08:58:25 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #221 on: July 15, 2018, 08:58:25 AM »
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter. It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
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'?

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.
On my model, if I put the distance at 0, I get #DIV/0!

Perhaps we are using different models. My model does work, however.

And the reason it gives that is that arcsin(rm/dm) gives that when dm (earth moon distance) is zero.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 09:00:43 AM by edby »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #222 on: July 15, 2018, 08:59:52 AM »


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?

Doesn't that depend on what he's firing at?

Is it something he can see, above his horizon, or something below?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #223 on: July 15, 2018, 09:10:05 AM »
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter. It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
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'?

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.
On my model, if I put the distance at 0, I get #DIV/0!

Perhaps we are using different models. My model does work, however.

I'm talking about the excel worksheet that predicts the phases and other elements of the moon in the Youtube video. Direct Link: http://dropcanvas.com/0hn26

Find the distance field and put 0

Before Zero:

Distance ( R )   381657.7442
Convert to RA and Dec      RA Eq of Date   Dec Eq of Date
Geometric Altitude   8   2
Azimuth   54   16
Phase   0.12919446

After Zero:

Distance ( R )   0
Convert to RA and Dec      RA Eq of Date   Dec Eq of Date
Geometric Altitude   8   2
Azimuth   54   16
Phase   0.12919446

Then when I reversed my change and changed only the "Month" Field from the default 10 to 02:

Convert to RA and Dec      RA Eq of Date   Dec Eq of Date
Geometric Altitude   17   2
Azimuth   0   16
Phase   0.731876501


The excel worksheet has little to do with the round earth model. It is based on patterns.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 09:14:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #224 on: July 15, 2018, 09:12:29 AM »
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.

Er, no. Nobody said that. Yes, the sky all around the sphere of the Earth is a sphere, there's no getting away from that. But you cannot simply imagine it as a sphere of fixed diameter. The objects out there are all at differing distances. The observer on Earth is constantly moving in relation to all of the objects, and is most likely never aligned with any orbital plane, nor with any line of illumination between them.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #225 on: July 15, 2018, 09:16:04 AM »
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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #226 on: July 15, 2018, 09:19:23 AM »
OK, but I do hope that your maths are better than mine: The Moon Tilt Illusion, Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers

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
Why should the "author . . . . . use the distance to the moon in any of her calculations" when those distances are quite irrelevant?
That being so, what is wrong with explaining it in relation to "the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room"?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #227 on: July 15, 2018, 09:44:40 AM »
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?
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.

To explain the underlying predictive model, such as Kepler's 3rd law combined with Newton's laws, would require much deeper understand of the mathematical relationships.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #228 on: July 15, 2018, 02:02:02 PM »
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.


All that I posted, and this is the one thing to which you respond...and you get that wrong.

But hey, if you want to claim Stellarium is agnostic about whether or not the earth is a globe or if the moon orbits the earth, and together they orbit the sun and you have no problem with using Stellarium for analysis of your flat earth theories, great!!!  I made the ™ remark as a courtesy, figuring you would discount Stellarium as proof of anything due to globe-bias. I agree it is, but if you want to say it's not then lets use it as a referee for globe vs flat contests.

But back to the challenge to show you this "tilt" and how it has nothing to do with the <2° "shift" that you focused in on. How do you explain that tilting of the moon in flat earth mechanics? Here's something that will either help or cause more consternation: if you switch from an azimuthal to an equatorial mount view in Stellarium, that rolling tilt goes away, but then the earth ground plane goes into a rolling motion.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #229 on: July 15, 2018, 04:39:53 PM »
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.


Tom, do you agree that IF the Earth was a globe, and IF the photographer involved was looking up at 45 degrees from his horizon, that IF we wanted to model this, that the following is a reasonable approximation?

The photographer is at the red dot. The red tangent line is broadly equivalent to his horizon, he's looking out to the right, and that if he's looking up 45 degrees, the green line represents his sightline to the Moon?   Y/N

Do you further agree, that if I cut out the triangle bounded by green and red lines, and held it against a desktop globe, at an assumed place where the photo was taken from, that would show a reasonable approximation to the sightline to the Moon, IF the Earth was a globe?   Y/N

If N to either, please state precisely what you disagree with.

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #230 on: July 15, 2018, 07:26:05 PM »
Tom, I'm working on the math video as promised. You've mentioned concerns about how this works with a crescent moon a few times. I'm not seeing any examples of this effect with a crescent moon. So far, all examples use a gibbous moon. Can you provide more on what you're talking about? I want to make sure I've got that covered.

BillO

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #231 on: July 15, 2018, 08:11:52 PM »
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

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.

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.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #232 on: July 16, 2018, 04:49:24 AM »
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.

I still haven't been able to capture earthshine for JRowe. I could see it a bit with the naked eye a little after sunset, but couldn't manage to get it in a photo.

Maybe this pic I found on Twitter can stand is as proxy since it's pretty close to what I was seeing:



The bright dot is Venus, and that other star is Leo.

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #233 on: July 16, 2018, 09:25:40 PM »
Work in progress so far. Here's a 3D realtime visualization of the paper that was linked here earlier.
The location of the sun and moon in this screenshot have been set to Los Angeles, CA at 8:00 pm July 24th.
BTW, sunset on July 24th should be a really good time to see the illusion at work.
So what you see here is my own version of the math to create the visualization. The blue ball is the Earth, the yellow is the Sun, the gray is the Moon. This is basically a dynamic re-creation of Figure 7 from that paper, although the only math used from that paper in this visualization is the number displayed as 43.60749 which is the apparent angle of light on the Moon in degrees. The red line with the balls on the end represents what the viewer sees as the apparent lighting direction.
In this case, the Moon appears to be lit from 43.6 degrees above the horizontal. (Go check out the moon at sunset July 24th to check it out.)

Next, I plan to record a video going through the math in that paper and using this dynamic sim to do a better explanation of it all.
After that, I was thinking I would do the math in an entirely different way... basically the way I built the sim in the first place. The numbers should match up, and that'll be a nice little confirmation.

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #234 on: July 17, 2018, 04:45:52 AM »
Hey Bobby,
My camera is still crapped out. (It uses a custom battery, and I can't find my charger anywhere.) Think you could take pictures of the moon at sunset on the 24th? I'd like to have real-world observations to validate the math and simulation.

Tom, if you want to take some pictures too and post them, that'd be super cool. Or anybody! Just tell me where you are when you take it, and we can compare the sim against your photos.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #235 on: July 17, 2018, 05:44:11 AM »
I will, but be aware that my evening skies are not reliably clear this time of year. Here's what the simulator predicts:


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #236 on: July 17, 2018, 06:35:55 AM »
Here are two 2D depictions of the same wide angle view of the sky:



The first shows the path of light from the sun to the moon as a straight line, which warps the horizon.

The second shows what happens to the representation of that straight path of sun-to-moon light when the horizon is straightened.

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #237 on: July 19, 2018, 08:01:58 AM »
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?
At long last, here is the video where I "DO THE MATH".

I followed through that paper and tried to explain the more difficult steps.
I showed in my 3D sim what July 24th at sunset will look like. Compare that with reality next week.
If you have any other dates or locations you'd like to check, just let me know, and we'll plug in the numbers.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #238 on: July 19, 2018, 10:32:26 PM »
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:



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:



The construct by this author of the paper in question 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.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 10:47:06 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #239 on: July 19, 2018, 11:09:32 PM »
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:



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:



The construct by this author of the paper in question 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.

It's long and pretty boring. Please take a look at the jump ahead section in the description. It should give you the spot to find your "scale" issues addressed.