[Tom Bishop]

The below is a photo of the same experiment on a much grander scale, this shows how when viewed at the same angle, the Moon and the Earth are illuminated the same.

It would be pretty weird if we were looking at that scene and the Sun was behind us.

And if we were looking at that scene with the Sun behind us, you guys would then say that should just take a string and align it horizontally to the Sun behind us to prove that the illuminated portions of the Moon and Earth are pointed at the Sun.

[AATW]

And if we were looking at that scene with the Sun behind us, you guys would then say that should just take a string and align it horizontally to the Sun behind us to prove that the illuminated portions of the Moon and Earth are pointed at the Sun.

I wouldn’t say that because spheres don’t point.

I’ve explained what the string experiment demonstrates. And yes, the light could be going up and around some imaginary dome in such a way that it still lines up with the string. But that isn’t how light behaves in either RE (light goes in straight lines) or FE (EA bends light upwards).

[JSS]

I got a nice clear night recently so I took another, much longer exposure. This one was taken with a bigger zoom than my first attempt, to give examples of two lenses and give a nice full-field without any obstructions.

This was over a period of 9 hours so the star trails have enough length to clearly show that they are indeed circles and not ovals or any other shape.  The bright one near the center is Polaris of course.

One interesting thing to point out is with the stars expanded into lines, you can very clearly see the color of each star.  I was tempted to increase the saturation to bring out the colors more, but I didn't want to do any post processing to the image, so this is what I got out of the camera. Even so, the colors are there. Red dwarfs, blue giants, yellow and white suns like our own.

[Iceman]

Awesome stuff!

How many individual shots goes into this? I'm assuming for a 9 hour trail you just had an auto shutter set up? Love the natural colors. I dont see them as much since moving to a place with more light pollution.

[stack]

I got a nice clear night recently so I took another, much longer exposure. This one was taken with a bigger zoom than my first attempt, to give examples of two lenses and give a nice full-field without any obstructions.

This was over a period of 9 hours so the star trails have enough length to clearly show that they are indeed circles and not ovals or any other shape.  The bright one near the center is Polaris of course.

One interesting thing to point out is with the stars expanded into lines, you can very clearly see the color of each star.  I was tempted to increase the saturation to bring out the colors more, but I didn't want to do any post processing to the image, so this is what I got out of the camera. Even so, the colors are there. Red dwarfs, blue giants, yellow and white suns like our own.

Jesus, that was in-camera? Beautiful. Which lens did you use this time?

[Tumeni]

I can move the camera around the closer object and create greater shifts in orientation than a background object.

... which is why, when observing the closer ball and the farther moon, you observe them close to each other in your field of view, so that you see them both from the same "perspective".

You cannot change your angle of view to the Moon to any significant degree.
You can change your angle of view to the nearer ball. Changing that to any significant degree invalidates the observation.

The further you move away from the centre line connecting the two spheres, the less the phases will resemble each other; which is the whole point. When you're aligned with them, they match.

I can move the camera around the closer object and create greater shifts in orientation than a background object.

That's what makes your reasoning fallacious. In reality, you cannot move your eye around the farther object to any significant degree, so when making the graphic model from the viewer's perspective, you MUST leave the camera at the angle relative to the farther object, and that angle MUST match that angle to the nearer one. 

As AATW said;

If you don't line them up then yes, you'll see different phases. That's the exact point.

You have to look along line A, the red line, to achieve the same "perspective" on nearer sphere and Moon. You cannot look directly along it because you cannot see through the nearer sphere, so you have to move only as much off-axis as allows you to see the Moon beyond the nearer sphere.

If you look along any line which is significantly different to line A, you defeat the whole purpose of the exercise, which is to look at both nearer sphere and Moon from the "same perspective".

It's not using a "perspective effect" to force them to match, it's ensuring that you, the observer, are seeing them both from the SAME perspective. 

[JSS]

Awesome stuff!

How many individual shots goes into this? I'm assuming for a 9 hour trail you just had an auto shutter set up? Love the natural colors. I dont see them as much since moving to a place with more light pollution.

About 1,000 shots at a 30 second exposure each.  Luckily I'm in a spot without much light pollution, kind of a little dark pocket surrounded by awful lighting.

Jesus, that was in-camera? Beautiful. Which lens did you use this time?

The camera actually has a mode specifically for star trails and can have the shutter open as long as you want, all night even.  Just push a button, come back and your picture is done.  But that causes problems as you can't easily deal with planes and other light sources so I like to do it manually.

I set it up to snap photos continuously and merged all the frames on the PC, minus ones with planes in them.

The lens is an old 55mm f2.8 macro.  No bells and whistles like the newer electronic ones but great quality.

[Tumeni]

It would be pretty weird if we were looking at that scene and the Sun was behind us.

It would be impossible to have the sun behind the camera in that photo. Renders your following paragraph moot.

And if we were looking at that scene with the Sun behind us, you guys would then say that should just take a string and align it horizontally to the Sun behind us to prove that the illuminated portions of the Moon and Earth are pointed at the Sun.

[Tumeni]

For info, Tom's photos and commentary from #90 above have been reposted and locked from comment in FE Projects;

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17844.0

Have you come to a conclusion, Tom? Do you see how the whole point of the exercise is not to move the camera around with respect to the nearer globe, but to align it with the line connecting the nearer and farther globes?

EDIT afterthought

The OP began with;

I want to know what is the simplest experiment that
one can do ... strongly distinguishes whether reality is a Flat Earth or Globe Earth?

... and Tom pitched in a couple of posts later with

The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at ...

Although RE claims to have answers for this, those answers really don't work.

What conclusions, Tom, from the six pages of discussion about this? Does this distinguish whether reality is a Flat Earth or Globe Earth?

[Tom Bishop]

For info, Tom's photos and commentary from #90 above have been reposted and locked from comment in FE Projects;

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17844.0

Have you come to a conclusion, Tom? Do you see how the whole point of the exercise is not to move the camera around with respect to the nearer globe, but to align it with the line connecting the nearer and farther globes?

You are arguing that if you align the ball with the Moon that it will point in the same direction. But this perspective effect also points in the same direction as direction at the directions on the outside surface of a sphere.

Below we have an orange cone which points horizontally and purple cones which follow the directions of the circle (representing part of a celestial sphere) around the orange cone, which are angled at +45 or -45 degrees in relation to the vertical.



The following are from Views 1 (Red Pointer) and 2 (Yellow Pointer):



Next we rotate the entire mechanism on its horizontal axis, 45 degrees to the right in relation to vertical:



From the views of the Red and Yellow pointers we again see that the middle cone points in the same direction as the cones on the outside of the circle:



The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.

[stack]

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.

What do cones have to do with spheres?

[Tom Bishop]

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not. Matching directions alone is meaningless.

What do cones have to do with spheres?

It shows where the object is pointing and how it changes orientation to perspective.

[AATW]

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not.

Yes. But that isn’t how light behaves.
It’s not how light behaves in RE (light travels in straight lines) or in FE (EA makes light bends upwards.

If you’re looking from the right and the right hand I is the string then sure, the light could be going in a straight I parallel. It could really going in a C shape away from you, or even a crazy S shape:

S C I    I  <— Tom

These are all possible and would align with the string, but only one of them matches how we understand light to behave.

Matching directions alone is meaningless.

It’s not meaningless. It demonstrates that there is a straight line perpendicular to the moon’s terminator which points at the sun, contrary to how it appears. It “breaks” the optical illusion where there is an apparent mismatch.

[Tumeni]

You are arguing that if you align the ball with the Moon that it will point in the same direction.

I don't need to argue it. You can see it for yourself, IF you align yourself at the same angle to the nearer globe and to the Moon. If you deliberately move around or align yourself at an angle to the nearer globe which is not the same as that to the Moon, you're defeating the whole point.

But this perspective effect also points in the same direction as direction at the directions on the outside surface of a sphere.

Sorry, but this is just ungrammatical gibberish. You need to rephrase what you're trying to say.

Your graphic moves the camera/observer to two points on opposite sides of your sphere. You cannot do this in real life, so what relevance does your example have?

[Tom Bishop]

I don't need to argue it. You can see it for yourself, IF you align yourself at the same angle to the nearer globe and to the Moon. If you deliberately move around or align yourself at an angle to the nearer globe which is not the same as that to the Moon, you're defeating the whole point.

The above graphics showed your argument to be meaningless. The experiment does not distinguish between something tilted upwards upon the surface of a sphere or something that is being tilted upwards by perspective.

Your graphic moves the camera/observer to two points on opposite sides of your sphere. You cannot do this in real life, so what relevance does your example have?

Actually you can hold an object up to the Moon and get to the other side of the object from the Moon. That's exactly what you asked us to do when you told us to hold the ball up to the Moon.

The changing angles in perspective match the angles on the outside of a sphere. This perspective experiment is unable to distinguish if something is really tilting around you on a sphere or not.

Yes. But that isn’t how light behaves.
It’s not how light behaves in RE (light travels in straight lines) or in FE (EA makes light bends upwards.

If you’re looking from the right and the right hand I is the string then sure, the light could be going in a straight I parallel. It could really going in a C shape away from you, or even a crazy S shape:

S C I    I  <— Tom

These are all possible and would align with the string, but only one of them matches how we understand light to behave.

Matching directions alone is meaningless.

It’s not meaningless. It demonstrates that there is a straight line perpendicular to the moon’s terminator which points at the sun, contrary to how it appears. It “breaks” the optical illusion where there is an apparent mismatch.

The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism. The method you provide with the ball is unable to distinguish between the two.

Since you posted "Yes", you acknowledge that this is a faulty experiment which proves nothing.

[Longtitube]

Last time I looked the Moon was still a sphere, not a cone. The foreshortening of perspective makes it possible for a uniformly lit cone pointing to the right and slightly towards you look much the same as one pointing to the right and slightly away from you, but a sphere is symmetrical and will always look the same however it is turned. Look at a sphere from above, below or from anywhere else and it still looks the same.

A light directed at a sphere will cast a shadow on the sphere which can be used to tell where the light is, which is the whole point of this debate, and it doesn’t matter how the sphere is turned because a sphere itself cannot point. Only the shadow on the sphere indicates where the light is.

Just how does this help in determining whether the earth is round or flat? Are we only arguing this in circles for the sake of argument?

[Tumeni]

The above graphics showed your argument to be meaningless. The experiment does not distinguish between something tilted upwards upon the surface of a sphere or something that is being tilted upwards by perspective.

It does not need to. The experiment only has one valid perspective. Along the axis of the imaginary line connecting the centre of the nearer globe and the centre of the moon.

You're trying to generate/create a different tilt by varying the perspective of the observer or camera, which goes against the point of the exercise, as I explained above.

Actually you can hold an object up to the Moon and get to the other side of the object from the Moon. That's exactly what you asked us to do when you told us to hold the ball up to the Moon.

More ungrammatical stuff, but - no, you can't, and no I didn't.

You cannot hold an object up in front of you, with the moon beyond it, also 'in front' of you, and simultaneously view that object from a point between the object and the Moon, nor can you go to the Moon, then "get to the other side (of the object) from the Moon. Not while still holding the object, you can't.

I told you to hold the nearer globe between you and the Moon, as close to the axis mentioned as you can, such that you can see both nearer globe and Moon. I didn't say anything about "getting to the other side".

[Tumeni]

The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism.

The grammar of this is unclear; it can read in two ways;

"The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to ( ... something ), can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism."  (My parenthesis added)

OR

"The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism."


Pick one or rephrase, Tom?

[AATW]

The perspective effect used to tilt the ball upwards to can match something that is already tilted upwards by another mechanism. The method you provide with the ball is unable to distinguish between the two.

I don't know what you mean by "another mechanism". The phase we see on the moon is because of our perspective. You have shown that with your experiments with the ball. As you take the photo from different angles you see different "phases" on the ball. In real life the ball is always half lit and half unlit, but the "phase" you see depends on your perspective. With a ball close to you it's easy to change your perspective. Because the moon is so far away that it doesn't matter where you are on earth, your perspective is effectively the same. That's why we both see the same phase at night despite being thousands of miles apart. You'll only see the same phase on the moon and the ball if you line them up correctly so you are looking at both from the same perspective. I have drawn diagrams which explain why. That is the point of that ball experiment.

Since you posted "Yes", you acknowledge that this is a faulty experiment which proves nothing.

Please stop the straw man trolling.
It's not a faulty experiment, the issue here seems to be that you don't understand what experiments are for.
They are generally designed to test a hypothesis. They don't "prove" the hypothesis, they can only disprove it.  For example.

Let's say I have a hypothesis that things fall to earth when I drop them.
I design and run an experiment where I drop things and sure enough they all fall. Hurrah, hypothesis proven!
Well, no. Because then I publish my results and someone else "drops" a helium balloon and it floats away. My hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect.
My original hypothesis was too simplistic. A more accurate model which explains observations is that gravity exerts a force on objects, but other forces may be acting too. In the case of the balloon a buoyancy force is acting which is stronger than the gravitational one so instead of falling the object rises.

That's how science works. Nothing is ever proven in the strictest sense, but the more experiments which are run the more confidence is built in the underlying hypotheses which they are designed to test.

In this case I hypothesise that:

1) The sun is illuminating the moon
2) Light goes in straight lines.

IF those two things are true THEN a line perpendicular to the terminator I observe on the moon should point at the sun. When I see the moon tilt illusion it appears that this is not the case.
The string experiment demonstrates that this apparent misalignment is simply an optical illusion. It proves there is no misalignment, it doesn't prove the hypotheses but it isn't designed to.



Now. What you're saying is the light could be travelling like this and it would still line up with the string:



You are correct. But what evidence do you have that light behaves this way? The light could be doing this too:



That would also line up with the string. But, again, I have no evidence that light behaves that way. I do have evidence that light goes in straight lines. LIGO has 4km long straight tunnels and bounces a laser between mirrors at each end 300 times making an effective distance of 1200km.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo
You would have thought that if light was being bent they'd have noticed.

So while the string experiment doesn't prove the light is going in straight lines and it could be going along the path you suppose, that just isn't how light behaves.
In RE light travels in straight lines,
In FE light is bent upwards by EA.

The path you claim is possible for the light to be travelling in doesn't match either RE or FE, it is a complete contradiction to EA.

[Tumeni]

... what is the simplest experiment that one can do in their neighborhood or community without expensive  equipment or a lot of commitment.

Can I ask your approximate neighbourhood?

Any large river valleys spanned by large bridges near you?