-
Before I start, when I say "for everyone", I do mean for all those over the half of the earth that can see the moon.
We are told The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
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.
In the diagram below I have drawn how I picture the geometry at the time of a full moon (some diagrams in the Wiki might help) of the earth, sun and moon. I have not drawn the moon above the sun, as the time of a full moon the moon would be around 20,000 km from the sun, so a few tens of kilometres could hardly make a difference! If the moon were much higher it would appear much smaller at the time of a full moon - and it certainly does not.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon_zpsa6pgu8ng.png)
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the object (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.
OK, so you have the half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.
The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon.
But, we know for a fact that the phase of moon does not change (substantially) throughout the night or for observers in different locations, and not as appears here
almost a full moon for those where the moon is near the horizon and only a half moon for those directly under the moon.
Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki.
-
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
-
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away.
Of course the sizes and distances aren't to scale, but the angles are to scale. That's what matters.
No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
Does it matter? We absolutely know what perspective does to objects inches away, miles away, tens of miles away, hundreds of miles away. Why would it be any different for thousands of miles? And why would perspective cause the moon to appear to turn? Have you ever observed perspective to cause ANYTHING to appear to turn? Perspective causes things to appear smaller, not turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone.
By "ancient geometric theories" do you mean basic highschool-level trigonometry? Because trig is extremely easy to prove.
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?
Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.
-
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
We can certainly predict what the moon should look like to observers. A simple experiment involving a ball with markings on it and a camera should work.
1. Mark out a circle on flat ground with a diameter of 249 or 25 feet depending on the scale you feel more appropriate.
2. Place distinct markings on the ball so you can compare what area on the ball is visible.
3. Suspend the ball above the ground at about 30 or 3 feet at some point you think the moons orbital path should be.
3. Observe the ball and take pictures from different points in the circle.
4. Mark a 40 or 4 foot straight line or you can make an arc on the ground.
5. Hang the ball 230 or 23 feet away.
6. Observe the ball and take pictures from different points on the line or arc.
7. Compare the pictures and take note of the markings that are visible on the ball.
8. You can then conduct more observations of the ball moving it around a bit.
Not perfect but should allow a reasonable prediction of how the moon should appear from different locations on Earth.
You can also use this to help try narrow down the orbit of the moon by comparing observations of the moon and those made during the experiment.
-
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away.
Of course the sizes and distances aren't to scale, but the angles are to scale. That's what matters.
How do we know that's all that matters?
No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
Does it matter? We absolutely know what perspective does to objects inches away, miles away, tens of miles away, hundreds of miles away. Why would it be any different for thousands of miles? And why would perspective cause the moon to appear to turn? Have you ever observed perspective to cause ANYTHING to appear to turn? Perspective causes things to appear smaller, not turn.
How do we "know" what happens to perspective tens or hundreds of miles away? Who studied that?
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone.
By "ancient geometric theories" do you mean basic highschool-level trigonometry? Because trig is extremely easy to prove.
In high school they also teach that Christopher Columbus discovered that the earth is round, that deoxygenated blood is blue, that an apple fell on Newton's head and helped him prove gravity, and that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.
Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?
Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.
Perspective hasn't been tested at any large distance at all. At what distances has it been tested? Who studied it? Please name names and cite studies rather than claiming that it has been proven.
-
How do we know that's all that matters?
The face of a sphere that can be seen depends on the angle that you view it at. If you are in front of it, you can see the front face. If you are on the right, you can see the right face, etc...
Let's not throw common sense out the window.
How do we "know" what happens to perspective tens or hundreds of miles away? Who studied that?
I don't know. It's common knowledge though, and can be easily derived. In fact, I personally derived the equation before looking it up. The burden of proof is on you to disprove it if you think it is wrong.
Here is the equation for the apparent angular diameter (a) of an object of height (h) that is a given distance (d) away:
a = 2*arctan(h/2d)
This equation works for any distance, assuming there are no optical distortions.
In high school they also teach that Christopher Columbus discovered that the earth is round, that deoxygenated blood is blue, that an apple fell on Newton's head and helped him prove gravity, and that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.
My point wasn't that anything taught in high school must be true. My point was that trig is extremely easy to prove or disprove. Once again, if you think trigonometry is wrong, the burden of proof is on you to disprove common knowledge.
Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?
Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.
Perspective hasn't been tested at any large distance at all. At what distances has it been tested? Who studied it? Please name names and cite studies rather than claiming that it has been proven.
Don't dodge the question. Why do you think the equation given above can't be used at larger distances?
Pyrrhonism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism) can be fun to think about, but ultimately this attitude that you have of "nothing can be known for certain" is totally useless for trying to build theories of how the world works. Sooner or later, in order to learn anything useful, you will have to assume something is true. Being skeptical is fine and dandy, but if you have no evidence to suggest that certain pieces of common knowledge are wrong, then it's usually best to assume they are correct.
-
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
You claim that "We operate from experiment to experience here". Oh spare me! You have provided absolutely NO evidence of anything except that "The earth looks flat!".
Please document your experimental evidence to suggest that what you claim has any validity!
I did clearly state that the size of objects was grossly enlarged, otherwise they would be invisible! And why on earth would anyone ever suggest the perspective would turn an object?
You claim that I "have provided no experiment"! Really, I do think that the onus is on YOU to provide some evidence that this counter intuitive proposition might be true.
I am rapidly learning that Zetetic means that you just imagining anything you need to bolster you theory is automatically true!
Yes, I know that YOU will take no notice of anything else I say, but many more people than you and I could read this, and I believe that those are who you must convince.
-
Perspective hasn't been tested at any large distance at all. At what distances has it been tested? Who studied it? Please name names and cite studies rather than claiming that it has been proven.
That depends on what you mean by perspective. If you are referring to the area of geometry that is commonly used by artists to create realistic-looking 3-D drawings, then perspective in that sense is a branch of mathematics. Geometry and other areas of math start with a set of propositions (axioms and postulates) and see what can be derived logically from these propositions. The theorems and proofs are purely logical structures that are completely independent of what happens to light when it passes through air, or the capabilities of human vision, or how many spatial dimensions there are in our universe. Any errors in perspective in this sense would be logical errors in the proofs of the theorems, and I really doubt you’ll find any at this date.
On the other hand, perhaps by perspective you are referring to aerial perspective, the effect the atmosphere has on the appearance of distant objects. That’s studied and explained by the field of optics, a branch of physics, and it’s been studied quite thoroughly. We have a very good quantitative understanding, grounded in quantum physics, of how light behaves when passing through media with temperature and density gradients, and how it interacts with matter.
Now, we already have, in my opinion, an excellent explanation for why the moon appears to have the same phase at the same time for all viewers, as well as roughly the same angular diameter. And this explanation includes a round earth. If you are proposing an alternative explanation and you want to be taken seriously, you need to show that yours is a better explanation than the currently accepted mainstream explanation. And it either needs to be consistent with our current understanding of optics, or to show how and why that needs to be modified.
-
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
OK, you want the drawing to scale! Here you have it. We can't see the sun, moon or the people, but it's to the best scale that I can manage.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsa3omydvi.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale
I have drawn in the paths that the light would seem to be requited for the people on the ground to see a complete full.
The observer under the moon looks straight up to the Full Moon and the observer where the full moon is rising or setting has to look horizontally to see the moon.
What seems most weird to me is that most of this "ray bending" occurs in the (almost) vacuum around the moon, where there is no air to refract the light at all!
Surely I am not the only one to see that whole scenario seems completely ridiculous! The writers of the Wiki obviously never gave a thought to "practical matters" like light paths.
And you claim you "theories" are backed by observation. Yes, I know "The earth seems flat outside my window!" or in you case on Monterey Bay.
I get asked if I have checked my observations (say as to sunrise directions) everywhere in the world! So I ask you have you performed your Monterey Bay experiment everywhere in the world?
-
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
OK, you want the drawing to scale! Here you have it. We can't see the sun, moon or the people, but it's to the best scale that I can manage.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsa3omydvi.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale
I have drawn in the paths that the light would seem to be requited for the people on the ground to see a complete full.
The observer under the moon looks straight up to the Full Moon and the observer where the full moon is rising or setting has to look horizontally to see the moon.
What seems most weird to me is that most of this "ray bending" occurs in the (almost) vacuum around the moon, where there is no air to refract the light at all!
Surely I am not the only one to see that whole scenario seems completely ridiculous! The writers of the Wiki obviously never gave a thought to "practical matters" like light paths.
And you claim you "theories" are backed by observation. Yes, I know "The earth seems flat outside my window!" or in you case on Monterey Bay.
I get asked if I have checked my observations (say as to sunrise directions) everywhere in the world! So I ask you have you performed your Monterey Bay experiment everywhere in the world?
You have failed to take into account the "bendy light". Please redraw your diagrams with this magic accounted for.
-
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
OK, you want the drawing to scale! Here you have it. We can't see the sun, moon or the people, but it's to the best scale that I can manage.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsykebeyt2.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale
I have drawn in the paths that the light would seem to be requited for the people on the ground to see a complete full.
The observer under the moon looks straight up to the Full Moon and the observer where the full moon is rising or setting has to look horizontally to see the moon.
What seems most weird to me is that most of this "ray bending" occurs in the (almost) vacuum around the moon, where there is no air to refract the light at all!
Surely I am not the only one to see that whole scenario seems completely ridiculous! The writers of the Wiki obviously never gave a thought to "practical matters" like light paths.
And you claim you "theories" are backed by observation. Yes, I know "The earth seems flat outside my window!" or in you case on Monterey Bay.
I get asked if I have checked my observations (say as to sunrise directions) everywhere in the world! So I ask you have you performed your Monterey Bay experiment everywhere in the world?
You have failed to take into account the "bendy light". Please redraw your diagrams with this magic accounted for.
Maybe my drawing skills are lacking, but those bendy lines from the moon down to the observers are meant to represent the "Bendy Light"!
Maybe some better artist than I can draw some much prettier bendy light (I think it has to be curly light now!).
You might pass a message to Tom Bishop (he takes no notice of me!) that in my book light travels in straight lines unless refracted, reflected or diffracted!
<<image edited a bit>>
-
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Sig'd. What a beautiful statement of our aims.
Let's not throw common sense out the window.
You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here. The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.
-
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Sig'd. What a beautiful statement of our aims.
Isn't "experiment" merely a part of "experience"? The difficult task is getting from experience to knowledge.
-
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Sig'd. What a beautiful statement of our aims.
Let's not throw common sense out the window.
You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here. The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.
In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4898.msg94696#msg94696).
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.
Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.
The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.
So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon_zpsa6pgu8ng.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - original | Wide spacer | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsykebeyt2.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale |
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.
But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.
At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.
Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote: We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!
Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.
you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.
-
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Sig'd. What a beautiful statement of our aims.
Let's not throw common sense out the window.
You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here. The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.
In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4898.msg94696#msg94696).
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.
Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.
The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.
So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon_zpsa6pgu8ng.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - original | Wide spacer | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsykebeyt2.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale |
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.
But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.
At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.
Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote: We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!
Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.
you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.
Oh Rabinoz, you have much to learn.
The aether of the firmament causes the light to bend thereby giving rise to everyone on the FE to see the moon at the same phase at the same time.
How dare you doubt the wiki.
-
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Sig'd. What a beautiful statement of our aims.
Let's not throw common sense out the window.
You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here. The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.
In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4898.msg94696#msg94696).
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.
Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.
The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.
So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon_zpsa6pgu8ng.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - original | Wide spacer | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsykebeyt2.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale |
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.
But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.
At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.
Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote: We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!
Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.
you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.
Oh Rabinoz, you have much to learn.
The aether of the firmament causes the light to bend thereby giving rise to everyone on the FE to see the moon at the same phase at the same time.
How dare you doubt the wiki.
Yes, so naive of me! Mind you in "the other place[1]" I was criticised for quoting Rowbotham!
Though I thought that some Flat Earth adherent might have had a more reasonable[2] explanation. No such luck!
[1] The Flat Earth Society (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php). Try it sometime - different!
[2] Must wash my mouth out - naughty word - reasonable!
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
They're not at the same altitude.
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
They're not at the same altitude.
At what altitude of the moon would this be possible then?
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
They're not at the same altitude.
You are right they are not the same altitude.
What does your observations led you to conclude the difference between the altitudes are?
And:
At what altitude of the moon would this be possible then?
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
They're not at the same altitude.
Excuse me? It was determined via triangulation that the celestial bodies are about the same height as the sun. We have documentation of our method of triangulation, but it is mostly in specific regards to the sun. It was found that the celestial bodies behave similarly, and so they were lumped into the same altitude of the sun. For specifics of the triangulation method, look for the article on the Sun's Distance on the Wiki on the front page.
What evidence is there that the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth?
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
They're not at the same altitude.
Excuse me? It was determined via triangulation that the celestial bodies are about the same height as the sun. We have documentation of our method of triangulation, but it is mostly in specific regards to the sun. It was found that the celestial bodies behave similarly, and so they were lumped into the same altitude of the sun. For specifics of the triangulation method, look for the article on the Sun's Distance on the Wiki on the front page.
What evidence is there that the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth?
Are you new?
Math works only when proving FE.
Observations are not collectively reviewed. They are done on a case by case basis. It does not matter if observations that say the Earth is flat conflict with each other. It is how the FE Zetetic method works.
Aether, really bendy light and laws of perspective that change to fit the situation makes it all fit together some how.
-
This one is easy. My 8-year-old son pointed it out. So take a ball and a flashlight. Place the ball on the ground and shine the flashlight on it to represent a full moon. This will work best when it's dark. 1. Stand directly in front ball observe. 2. Stand directly on the side of the ball what do you see? 1. full moon, 2. One-half moon? Now place a marker where you stood. Now move the ball a few feet away from its original location as well as the flashlight. (Move the ball in North direction) Now again stand in the same 2 places you stood before and look directly at the ball. Now, what do you see? You should see a full moon from both 1&2 locations. Remember the moon is 230,100 mi away from the Earth. You see the moon from Earths perspective.
If you don't want to do the whole ball and light thing. Try this
http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/lunarcycles/moonphases.html
Select Moon perspective and start the animation. This should shine some light on the whole moon question.
Tip if you select from space prospective you can then freely move the arrow and simulate the ball and light Example.
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
They're not at the same altitude.
Excuse me? It was determined via triangulation that the celestial bodies are about the same height as the sun. We have documentation of our method of triangulation, but it is mostly in specific regards to the sun. It was found that the celestial bodies behave similarly, and so they were lumped into the same altitude of the sun. For specifics of the triangulation method, look for the article on the Sun's Distance on the Wiki on the front page.
What evidence is there that the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth?
Are you new?
Math works only when proving FE.
Observations are not collectively reviewed. They are done on a case by case basis. It does not matter if observations that say the Earth is flat conflict with each other. It is how the FE Zetetic method works.
Aether, really bendy light and laws of perspective that change to fit the situation makes it all fit together some how.
I just thought it odd that Tom either forgot his earlier post, or had changed his mind.
Remember, you have to live the lie in order to really believe it...
-
Impossible. Completely impossible.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2vi055e.jpg)
The moon must loose it's angel with sun and the earth but it's saving it's shape. Watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_jfKvYhWo
İmpossible. Completely impossible.
-
I am unclear about your post. Which thing is impossible? Round earth, small distance to small moon and sun, or the video?
-
The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.
The angel of sun-moon-earth direction continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.
-
The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.
The angel of sun-moon-earth direction continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.
You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes? This....does not match my experience. On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night. I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision. For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.
-
The moon is never TRULY full. True full moon might occur at daytime, or the moon might have moved in its orbit to not be truly full. However, this is only looking at it with exceptional detail.
What those drawings try to outline has nothing to do with it though. As always, out of scale drawings like those are useless, without even beginning to highlight the importance of the size of the sun, the moons inclination, and the distances involved.
More blanks fired. TFES has a new proponent all fired up and ready to fail :)
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
They're not at the same altitude.
Excuse me? It was determined via triangulation that the celestial bodies are about the same height as the sun. We have documentation of our method of triangulation, but it is mostly in specific regards to the sun. It was found that the celestial bodies behave similarly, and so they were lumped into the same altitude of the sun. For specifics of the triangulation method, look for the article on the Sun's Distance on the Wiki on the front page.
What evidence is there that the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth?
There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.
For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.
-
Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow.
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?
They're not at the same altitude.
Excuse me? It was determined via triangulation that the celestial bodies are about the same height as the sun. We have documentation of our method of triangulation, but it is mostly in specific regards to the sun. It was found that the celestial bodies behave similarly, and so they were lumped into the same altitude of the sun. For specifics of the triangulation method, look for the article on the Sun's Distance on the Wiki on the front page.
What evidence is there that the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth?
There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.
For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.
You know, we have our own method of measuring the distance to other stars. It's called stellar parallax. Perhaps you'd like to explain how your triangulation works?
-
I don't mean to impede on any discussion that could come right now, but to add on to the questions, how is it possible to see the full moon in Antarctica? I mean, no matter regarding the "Controversial 'altitudes' of the moon and sun", there is no orientation that allows for that phenomenon throughout an entire day. The only plausible train of thought is that the moon and sun are level with each other and that at one point during their revolutions, there are two incident angles that allow for full moons, directly to the west and east of the viewer. However the problem arises when, during the movement of these celestial bodies, the moon quickly loses the light from the sun, resulting in a new moon, and then regains it again, resulting in a full moon. I'm genuinely curious and if anyone could address this, I'd be grateful. Thank you
-
There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.
For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.
FYI, this is the debate section of the forum. You completely dismissed the evidence given in the original post. That's fine. But you seem to completely dodge giving any reason WHY you dismissed this evidence. And you seem to be avoiding giving out any details of your counter-theory. This isn't very conducive to debate. If anything, this is an indication that you don't have a viable counter-theory.
-
Emphasis added:
There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.
How much variation in height do you think there is? Many times, in many threads, I have seen you claiming the support of the wiki's "approximately" term. Just how approximate is the 3000 miles figure? Plus or minus how much, ballpark? A few solar or lunar diameters? Half the distance from here to there? I ask because I'm curious to play with the geometry for the uppermost lunar position and the lowermost solar position, to see if any arrangement of these celestial objects could give us the moon phases we see.
-
You know, we have our own method of measuring the distance to other stars. It's called stellar parallax. Perhaps you'd like to explain how your triangulation works?
The observations in the stellar parallax experiments are taken at different parts of the year. It is explained in FET by having the stars move northward or southward over the course of the year, just like the sun.
Emphasis added: There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.
How much variation in height do you think there is? Many times, in many threads, I have seen you claiming the support of the wiki's "approximately" term. Just how approximate is the 3000 miles figure? Plus or minus how much, ballpark? A few solar or lunar diameters? Half the distance from here to there? I ask because I'm curious to play with the geometry for the uppermost lunar position and the lowermost solar position, to see if any arrangement of these celestial objects could give us the moon phases we see.
Unknown at present.
-
There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.
For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.
FYI, this is the debate section of the forum. You completely dismissed the evidence given in the original post. That's fine. But you seem to completely dodge giving any reason WHY you dismissed this evidence. And you seem to be avoiding giving out any details of your counter-theory. This isn't very conducive to debate. If anything, this is an indication that you don't have a viable counter-theory.
What evidence in the original post? A small diagram isn't evidence. That doesn't tell us how perspective behaves at large distances.
I asked for a name of the scientist who studied perspective and was met with silence. I asked what evidence there was that perspective works in the way the ancient greeks described and I got silence. There is no evidence for me to refute.
-
There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.
For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.
FYI, this is the debate section of the forum. You completely dismissed the evidence given in the original post. That's fine. But you seem to completely dodge giving any reason WHY you dismissed this evidence. And you seem to be avoiding giving out any details of your counter-theory. This isn't very conducive to debate. If anything, this is an indication that you don't have a viable counter-theory.
What evidence in the original post? A small diagram isn't evidence. That doesn't tell us how perspective behaves at large distances.
I asked for a name of the scientist who studied perspective and was met with silence. I asked what evidence there was that perspective works in the way the ancient greeks described and I got silence. There is no evidence for me to refute.
Do you have any evidence that perspective doesn't work like that, besides the fact that you really, really want the earth to be flat? If you want to upset a well-established mathematical convention, the burden of proof is on you.
-
I asked for a name of the scientist who studied perspective and was met with silence. I asked what evidence there was that perspective works in the way the ancient greeks described and I got silence. There is no evidence for me to refute.
I apologize. Wikipedia gives a very nice overview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28visual%29) of the subject, with references if you want to dive deeper. It isn't a controversial or complicated subject.
Linear Perspective: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28graphical%29)
The two most characteristic features of perspective are that objects are smaller as their distance from the observer increases; and that they are subject to foreshortening, meaning that an object's dimensions along the line of sight are shorter than its dimensions across the line of sight.
As for names of people who studied it:
Italian Renaissance painters and architects including Filippo Brunelleschi, Masaccio, Paolo Uccello, Piero della Francesca and Luca Pacioli studied linear perspective, wrote treatises on it, and incorporated it into their artworks, thus contributing to the mathematics of art.
Also relevant is how the atmosphere effects our view of objects: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_perspective)
As the distance between an object and a viewer increases, the contrast between the object and its background decreases, and the contrast of any markings or details within the object also decreases. The colours of the object also become less saturated and shift towards the background color...
I bolded the main features of perspective. Do you have any reason to believe that any of this is not true? Be specific please.
-
There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.
For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.
FYI, this is the debate section of the forum. You completely dismissed the evidence given in the original post. That's fine. But you seem to completely dodge giving any reason WHY you dismissed this evidence. And you seem to be avoiding giving out any details of your counter-theory. This isn't very conducive to debate. If anything, this is an indication that you don't have a viable counter-theory.
What evidence in the original post? A small diagram isn't evidence. That doesn't tell us how perspective behaves at large distances.
I asked for a name of the scientist who studied perspective and was met with silence. I asked what evidence there was that perspective works in the way the ancient greeks described and I got silence. There is no evidence for me to refute.
Do you have any evidence that "perspective behaves at large distances" any differently for what you call large distances to what it does over moderate distances?
In the original post I claimed to have proved nothing. I asked what I thought was a quite reasonable question.
In case you have forgotten, you claimed my first photo was not to scale, so I obliged and made one to scale:
We can't see the sun, moon or the people on this one, but it's to the best scale that I can manage.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsykebeyt2.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale
I have drawn in the paths that the light would seem to be required for the people on the ground to see a complete full moon.
The observer under the moon looks straight up to the Full Moon and the observer where the full moon is rising or setting has to look horizontally to see the moon.
I have drawn what to me seems to be the paths light would have to take for each observer to see the moon as full.
On top of this is the observation that on the real earth each observer sees almost exactly the same sized moon, but in your model the observer under the moon is about 3,000 miles away, while the other one is around THREE times that distance away - how is it possible for each to see the same sized moon.
Now, your Wiki gives a "sort of" explanations for the sun: Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
Now while I in no way accept that explanation for the sun, it CANNOT be given as a reason for the moon's apparent size staying the same - for the moon there are no"intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer."
So I am not claiming to having proved anything. I am asking: - What are the light paths that allow all observers to see a full moon?
- How does the moon appear (almost exactly) the same size to all observers?
-
This one is easy. My 8-year-old son pointed it out. So take a ball and a flashlight. Place the ball on the ground and shine the flashlight on it to represent a full moon. This will work best when it's dark. 1. Stand directly in front ball observe. 2. Stand directly on the side of the ball what do you see? 1. full moon, 2. One-half moon? Now place a marker where you stood. Now move the ball a few feet away from its original location as well as the flashlight. (Move the ball in North direction) Now again stand in the same 2 places you stood before and look directly at the ball. Now, what do you see? You should see a full moon from both 1&2 locations. Remember the moon is 230,100 mi away from the Earth. You see the moon from Earths perspective.
If you don't want to do the whole ball and light thing. Try this
http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/lunarcycles/moonphases.html
Select Moon perspective and start the animation. This should shine some light on the whole moon question.
Tip if you select from space prospective you can then freely move the arrow and simulate the ball and light Example.
Now wait for the claims that the moon will be shaded by the earth at the time of a Full Moon!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Phases%20Animation%20at%20Full%20Moon_zpsmyikhs3c.png)
Moon Phases Animation at Full Moon
I've been through that one, having to bring out the "not to scale" and "moon's orbit 5.2° to the ecliptic" explanations!
Your turn this time!
-
The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.
The angel of sun-moon-earth direction continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.
You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes? This....does not match my experience. On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night. I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision. For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.
surely surely. everything is a great chance isin't it? But i don't believe the chance. ;)
-
The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.
The angel of sun-moon-earth direction continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.
You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes? This....does not match my experience. On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night. I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision. For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.
surely surely. everything is a great chance isin't it? But i don't believe the chance. ;)
It's not a matter of chance! But the sun, earth and moon are only perfectly aligned for an instant, yet we see what looks close enough to a full moon all night!
Even on the day before and the day after a full moon it is difficult to tell that the moon is not perfectly full - other than with a good telescope.
Does the flat earth have a better explanation. I have never seen one!
-
The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.
The angel of sun-moon-earth direction continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.
You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes? This....does not match my experience. On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night. I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision. For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.
surely surely. everything is a great chance isin't it? But i don't believe the chance. ;)
It's not a matter of chance! But the sun, earth and moon are only perfectly aligned for an instant, yet we see what looks close enough to a full moon all night!
Even on the day before and the day after a full moon it is difficult to tell that the moon is not perfectly full - other than with a good telescope.
Does the flat earth have a better explanation. I have never seen one!
If the framework is true, then the sun and moon must move with a way completely synchronized each other. As we know that they aren't moving synchronized the sun and moon.
I want to show anything different:
This is the position of moon how is it seems on different places at tonight.
This is Istanbul which place here i am.
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul
(http://i.imgsafe.org/f748906.jpg)
This is London:
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london
(http://i.imgsafe.org/3da66dc.jpg)
This is South Africa
(http://i.imgsafe.org/6d0a94d.jpg)
Moon illuminated percent about %24.3 in London, Istanbul and South Africa.
At last this is New York "the other side" of the World. About opposite to Istanbul.
(http://i.imgsafe.org/19687c3.jpg)
As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.
ABOUT FE's and moon
You know i'm believing the moon has own light and differently than the other FEs. I'm acting like these because i'm believing that moon in the arabic "kamer" means same time as a camera. So i'm thinking that moon is a camera that opening lens and closing lens continuesly.
Click to the link and then click to "listen" it. https://translate.google.com/?hl=tr#en/ar/moon
Did you see "al camera?". In arabic "al" like "the". So "al camera" means: "the moon". If you listen the translation it says "al qamarou". But it always on the quran as this form: "al camera". And the "kamer" in Turkish is "moon" too. (the moon). Peoples usually don't care about the tiny points like this.
Click to see / listen how the "kamer" is meaning of the "moon" in Turkish.
https://translate.google.com/?hl=tr#tr/en/kamer
But as you know that i don't believe the chance.
-
As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.
I don't think you understand how the moon works, sir. The moon goes around the earth in synodic orbit, every 29.5 days, cycling through all it's phases in this period. As the earth rotates, it would appear to be the same shape and relative "percentage" of the moon illuminated, however according to your position above or below the equator, it would appear rotated around the face, hence the same shape and percentage. The moon phase does not change throughout the night! Also, the reason that the moon phase isn't different depending on your position because the moon is VERY far away, your relative position on the earth would not matter in relation to the distance from the moon to the sun. The reason a full moon is rarer than you would think is because it only happens approximately every 29.5 days;only when the inclination of the moon allows for it, as the moon's orbit itself rotates about the polar axis.
Two possibilities of the moon's crossing of the earth:
(http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/11/Eclipses-moon-Credit-C_R_-Nave_GeorgiaStateU-400x289.jpg)
Change of the moon's orbit(apsidal procession):
(http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2014/04/Moon-nodes-lunar-precession.jpg)
-
As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.
I don't think you understand how the moon works, sir. The moon goes around the earth in synodic orbit, every 29.5 days, cycling through all it's phases in this period. As the earth rotates, it would appear to be the same shape and relative "percentage" of the moon illuminated, however according to your position above or below the equator, it would appear rotated around the face, hence the same shape and percentage. The moon phase does not change throughout the night! Also, the reason that the moon phase isn't different depending on your position because the moon is VERY far away, your relative position on the earth would not matter in relation to the distance from the moon to the sun. The reason a full moon is rarer than you would think is because it only happens approximately every 29.5 days;only when the inclination of the moon allows for it, as the moon's orbit itself rotates about the polar axis.
Two possibilities of the moon's crossing of the earth:
(http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/11/Eclipses-moon-Credit-C_R_-Nave_GeorgiaStateU-400x289.jpg)
Change of the moon's orbit(apsidal procession):
(http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2014/04/Moon-nodes-lunar-precession.jpg)
I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing. Because if it far away is not important for us because we're looking the "angle from earth". If the angle is 45 degrees then is it far away or close to us means same: It is at 45 degrees angle.
Anyway.
Look these cities for what i'll say.
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/usa/los-angeles
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/japan/tokyo
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/china/beijing
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/sydney
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/south-africa/cape-town
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/chile/chillan
Now i'm doing a table take care here:
CITY NAME / SUN ALTITUDE / MOON PERCENT ILLUMINATED
Istanbul 43 ° 17.5%
London 21° 17.5%
Los Angeles -47° 17.5%
Tokyo 30° 17.5%
Beijing 47° 17.5%
Sydney 2° 17.5%
Cape Town 17° 17.5%
Chillán (Chile) -54° 17.6%
You are saying that sun altitude is continuesly changing but moon percent illuminated continuesly same. You done a modelling to prove this. We are talking about a 3d world and everything is big and far away. So this impossible to think the system how perfect that you drawn.
should I believe any of this bullshit?
(http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/11/Eclipses-moon-Credit-C_R_-Nave_GeorgiaStateU-400x289.jpg) You are drawing this. Yes it is full moon but the earth and moon are rotating so the angle of the sunlight coming is continuesly changing a different way. How is it continue to see it full moon? It is impossible. Don't defend these nonsences.
-
I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing. Because if it far away is not important for us because we're looking the "angle from earth". If the angle is 45 degrees then is it far away or close to us means same: It is at 45 degrees angle.
Well, you don't understand how trigonometry works. One's distance relative to the moon due to the rotation of the earth doesn't matter because the distance from one side of the earth to the other is negligible compared to the distance to the moon. From any observer on the night side of the earth, you are not seeing the moon from a different angle(it's not visible, it's like a 6 minute change) that's why the percent of the moon illuminated is the same for every city. Also, on a flat earth, that percentage would change throughout the night, so you don't make a strong point for your case.
Anyway.
Look these cities for what i'll say.
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/usa/los-angeles
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/japan/tokyo
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/china/beijing
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/sydney
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/south-africa/cape-town
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/chile/chillan
Now i'm doing a table take care here:
CITY NAME / SUN ALTITUDE / MOON PERCENT ILLUMINATED
Istanbul 43 ° 17.5%
London 21° 17.5%
Los Angeles -47° 17.5%
Tokyo 30° 17.5%
Beijing 47° 17.5%
Sydney 2° 17.5%
Cape Town 17° 17.5%
Chillán (Chile) -54° 17.6%
You are saying that sun altitude is continuesly changing but moon percent illuminated continuesly same. You done a modelling to prove this. We are talking about a 3d world and everything is big and far away. So this impossible to think the system how perfect that you drawn.
The positions of the moon and sun relative to each other are not changing significantly. The earth is just rotating, that's why it seems to "change altitude. I hope you begin to understand that soon.
should I believe any of this bullshit?
Yes!
You are drawing this. Yes it is full moon but the earth and moon are rotating so the angle of the sunlight coming is continuesly changing a different way. How is it continue to see it full moon? It is impossible. Don't defend these nonsences.
This hurts to read. The moon rotates at the almost same speed it goes around the earth (Most likely due to the fact that it came from the earth, and therefore has an opposite, equal spin) so we primarily see the same side, with a little wobbling. How does the rotation of the earth or the moon have anything to do with the light shining on the moon anyway? That would depend on the revolutionary position. Also, yeah the moon is constantly moving around the earth, but it's moving very slowly, so you wouldn't detect any change in the phase of the moon in one night. Think about it like this, you have two spheres, you paint one half of one and put it on the ground. You put a dot on a point on the other one. Put the one with a dot on the ground far away from the other and turn it. The ball you are turning won't affect the "phase" of the other one, it will appear the same regardless of the rotation.
-
I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing.
It actually means EVERYTHING. The distance between Moon and Istanbul is effectively the same as the distance between Moon and Sydney, or the Moon and Tokyo. This means that the light of the Moon should be no different at those places, because the light is travelling the same distance, subject to the same inverse-square law.
Also important to note: that drawing of sun, earth, and moon is not to scale. That drawing shows a ridiculously close moon, which would occupy an enormous amount of sky if that's where it really orbited. ThatsNice chose that drawing, no doubt, so as to have a moon large enough to see it for the purpose of illustrating the lunar phases. Here is a scale drawing to illustrate lunar distance:
(https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/figures/toscale.gif)
See how tiny the moon is? See how far away? The difference in distance between lunar Apogee and lunar Perigee is almost eight times the largest possible distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth, which means that the distances between cities on earth is insignificant. And the difference in distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth is only 2% of the shortest possible earth-moon distance, not enough to make a visible difference in the moonlight at those two locations.
-
I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing.
It actually means EVERYTHING. The distance between Moon and Istanbul is effectively the same as the distance between Moon and Sydney, or the Moon and Tokyo. This means that the light of the Moon should be no different at those places, because the light is travelling the same distance, subject to the same inverse-square law.
Also important to note: that drawing of sun, earth, and moon is not to scale. That drawing shows a ridiculously close moon, which would occupy an enormous amount of sky if that's where it really orbited. ThatsNice chose that drawing, no doubt, so as to have a moon large enough to see it for the purpose of illustrating the lunar phases. Here is a scale drawing to illustrate lunar distance:
(https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/figures/toscale.gif)
See how tiny the moon is? See how far away? The difference in distance between lunar Apogee and lunar Perigee is almost eight times the largest possible distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth, which means that the distances between cities on earth is insignificant. And the difference in distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth is only 2% of the shortest possible earth-moon distance, not enough to make a visible difference in the moonlight at those two locations.
Excellent explanation! I would like to add to it in the case that Intikam asks about other things such as that "inclination band", however. The "inclination band" in this illustration is the area where the moon could be as it is not exactly horizontal to the earth, it is 5.2 degrees diagonal. As the moon goes around the earth, a full moon happens when it is higher than or lower than the earth in that band, a lunar eclipse happens when it is behind the earth, or dead center of that band. The moon's position in it changes due to lunar orbital precession, or apsidal precession, as I had stated before. The moon's orbit "turns" due to precessional force, making one full rotation every 8.5 or so years. This means it intersects with the "inclination band" differently every time it goes around every 29.5 days, sometimes up or down(full moon), sometimes close to the center(partial lunar eclipse), sometimes in the center(total lunar eclipse). Hope that helps more
-
Same is true on the sunward side as well.
A. Usually the moon passes the sunward point above or below the center of the band and we have a New Moon without an eclipse, as the moon's shadow passes above the North pole or below the south pole
B. Sometimes it passes the sunward point in or near the middle of the band and we get some form of Solar Eclipse:
1. If it passes above or below dead-center, we get a partial eclipse
2. If it passes dead center and near Apogee (farther from earth) with get an annular eclipse
3. If it passes dead center closer to perigee (nearer to earth) we get a total eclipse. The closer to earth, the wider the shadow.
-
Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.
-
Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.
Well, this is just a coincidental as the sun and the moon being the same distance away and the same size. What is your argument?
-
Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.
Well, this is just a coincidental as the sun and the moon being the same distance away and the same size. What is your argument?
I have no argument. They would literally just be as they appear to be. Also the moon would revolve around the sky the same direction as the sun as it apparently does, and not in the opposite direction according to heliocentric theory.
We wouldn't coincidentally be in the only habitable zone of our solar system either. The axis wouldn't be coincidentally tilted just perfectly for us to experience seasons. The stars wouldn't be coincidentally so far away that their position remains relatively unchanged throughout the 583 million mile trip around the sun.
And most of all, not entirely related to heliocentrism but more so big bang hypothesis, we wouldn't coincidentally have sprung up from inorganic matter to become living, breathing, sentient, conscious beings either.
-
Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.
Well, this is just a coincidental as the sun and the moon being the same distance away and the same size. What is your argument?
We wouldn't coincidentally be in the only habitable zone of our solar system either. The axis wouldn't be coincidentally tilted just perfectly for us to experience seasons. The stars wouldn't be coincidentally so far away that their position remains relatively unchanged throughout the 583 million mile trip around the sun.
I can't really say much else about the other things you said as those are your beliefs, and you're entitled to them. However, this part is a flawed argument. You can't argue coincidence that out planet it perfect for habitable life. Out of the billions upon billions of planets that are observable or predicted, statistics dictate that the perfect condition for life is likely for at least one. Imagine that earth were not habitable to begin with: it's more than likely that we would come about on some other planet rather than just not exist at all. Earth happened to be a habitable planet, so life evolved. If it were a coincidence, it would be that life evolved everywhere and earth just so HAPPENED to be habitable for us as a culture. It is the other way around: its habitability caused life.
-
The graphic shows that The full moon is an exceptional circumstance. So you can see it only briefly and this possible only a very narrow field on the earth.
The angel of sun-moon-earth direction continuously changes. So it is impossible you see the full moon more than just a few minutes.
You're saying that a full moon only lasts a few minutes? This....does not match my experience. On the night of a full moon, it has always been a full moon (within the limits of my visual acuity, of course) for the entire night. I'll grant you that there is only a single moment where the perfect physical alignment of objects exists to produce maximum fullness, but the difference between that one perfect moment and the hours on either side is undetectable to human vision. For that matter, even the night before and the night after the official full moon both appear pretty much as full moons as well, sometimes it's hard to tell which night is truly the full moon.
surely surely. everything is a great chance isin't it? But i don't believe the chance. ;)
It's not a matter of chance! But the sun, earth and moon are only perfectly aligned for an instant, yet we see what looks close enough to a full moon all night!
Even on the day before and the day after a full moon it is difficult to tell that the moon is not perfectly full - other than with a good telescope.
Does the flat earth have a better explanation. I have never seen one!
If the framework is true, then the sun and moon must move with a way completely synchronized each other. As we know that they aren't moving synchronized the sun and moon.
I want to show anything different:
This is the position of moon how is it seems on different places at tonight.
This is Istanbul which place here i am.
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul
(http://i.imgsafe.org/f748906.jpg)
This is London:
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london
(http://i.imgsafe.org/3da66dc.jpg)
This is South Africa
(http://i.imgsafe.org/6d0a94d.jpg)
Moon illuminated percent about %24.3 in London, Istanbul and South Africa.
At last this is New York "the other side" of the World. About opposite to Istanbul.
(http://i.imgsafe.org/19687c3.jpg)
As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.
ABOUT FE's and moon
You know i'm believing the moon has own light and differently than the other FEs. I'm acting like these because i'm believing that moon in the arabic "kamer" means same time as a camera. So i'm thinking that moon is a camera that opening lens and closing lens continuesly.
Click to the link and then click to "listen" it. https://translate.google.com/?hl=tr#en/ar/moon
Did you see "al camera?". In arabic "al" like "the". So "al camera" means: "the moon". If you listen the translation it says "al qamarou". But it always on the quran as this form: "al camera". And the "kamer" in Turkish is "moon" too. (the moon). Peoples usually don't care about the tiny points like this.
Click to see / listen how the "kamer" is meaning of the "moon" in Turkish.
https://translate.google.com/?hl=tr#tr/en/kamer
But as you know that i don't believe the chance.
The shape of the sunlit part of the moon in Cape Town ... compared to the cities in the northern hemisphere ... BOOM !!! There is your proof of a spherical earth !!
This would NOT be possible if the earth was flat !!
http://thecreatorscalendar.com/wp-content/uploads/chart-hemispherex2.jpg (http://thecreatorscalendar.com/wp-content/uploads/chart-hemispherex2.jpg)
-
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Sig'd. What a beautiful statement of our aims.
Let's not throw common sense out the window.
You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here. The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.
In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4898.msg94696#msg94696).
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.
Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.
The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.
So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon_zpsa6pgu8ng.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - original | Wide spacer | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsykebeyt2.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale |
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.
But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.
At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.
Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote: We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!
Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.
you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.
Perhaps Tom could draw a diagram of what is meant by the wiki, seeing he doesn't think anyone else is capable !
-
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Sig'd. What a beautiful statement of our aims.
Let's not throw common sense out the window.
You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here. The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.
In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4898.msg94696#msg94696).
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.
Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.
The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.
So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon_zpsa6pgu8ng.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - original | Wide spacer | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsykebeyt2.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale |
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.
But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.
At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.
Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote: We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!
Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.
you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.
Perhaps Tom could draw a diagram of what is meant by the wiki, seeing he doesn't think anyone else is capable !
The diagram rainboz provided is a completely incorrect interpretation of perspective. See this video on the topic of these "side view" representations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
-
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Sig'd. What a beautiful statement of our aims.
Let's not throw common sense out the window.
You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here. The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.
In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4898.msg94696#msg94696).
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.
Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.
The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.
So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon_zpsa6pgu8ng.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - original | Wide spacer | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20-%20almost%20scale%20bendy%20light_zpsykebeyt2.png)
Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale |
The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.
What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.
Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.
But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.
At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.
Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote: We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!
Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.
you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.
Perhaps Tom could draw a diagram of what is meant by the wiki, seeing he doesn't think anyone else is capable !
The diagram rainboz provided is a completely incorrect interpretation of perspective. See this video on the topic of these "side view" representations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
Whatever has that video got to do with "How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?"
And from my point of view that video is completely erroneous in making the 3,000 mile height of the sun appear to fall to zero in only 10,000 miles or so.
In my post How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth « Reply #1 on: May 28, 2016, 04:19:52 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5051.msg97807#msg97807).
Rowbotham suggested that the "vanishing point" would be about 3,000 times the size of the object. I think that is "stretching it", but maybe my poor old eyes are wearing out! But, let's use Rowbotham's figure.
Now I was regarding the 3,000 miles from the sun to the ground as "an object", with a vanishing point a great distance away (9,000,000 miles).
No, I don't think that means anything either, but to say that the 3,000 mile height appears to vanish after only 10,000 miles is quite ridiculous.
When I get a chance to catch up on things after a stint in hospital (no not the "funny farm") I'll try to explain further with some diagrams.
But, it is completely irrelevant in explaining how we might see a full moon.
-
The diagram rainboz provided is a completely incorrect interpretation of perspective. See this video on the topic of these "side view" representations.
<youtube video>
Rabinoz's diagram was fine. The "side view" angle corresponds to the apparent angle viewed from the person's perspective. You can easily verify that this is true by drawing a big triangle on a wall (use thumbtacks or bubblegum or something). Measure the angle from the side using a protractor, and then measure the apparent angle of the other corners from the perspective of one corner. They will be the same.
The person in the video has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.