The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: edby on June 23, 2018, 07:52:48 AM

Title: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 23, 2018, 07:52:48 AM
The wiki argues that a full moon is impossible.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory

However, the scale of the drawing is misleading. The sun, moon and earth do not lie at anything like those distances. The ratio between the distance of sun to earth, and the earth’s diameter is something like 12,000.

So, while still not nearly the right scale, I suggest it is more like this.
Thus it is perfectly possible for all the area of the moon visible from the earth to be fully lit by the sun, i.e. 100% ‘full moon’.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 23, 2018, 08:42:19 AM
The diagram below may be helpful. If the moon is completely within the umbra, we have a total eclipse, if partly, then a partial eclipse. If wholly within the penumbra, a total penumbral eclipse. If just outside, then full moon, which as the diagram suggests, is more likely to be seen in the daytime, or around twilight.

(But again, it's horribly out of scale).
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on June 23, 2018, 09:02:22 AM
OK, so it may just be possible to see a Full Moon at Moonrise, but only for a few minutes. The rest of the time, humans only see 97%, 96% of the lit surface due to the offset/misalignment of the Earth and Moon .... but so what?

All that does is reinforce the globe mechanics. Doesn't actually show the Earth is Not a Globe.

Full Moon is a definition of where the Moon is in space, not of what each and every human can actually see.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 23, 2018, 09:22:09 AM
OK, so it may just be possible to see a Full Moon at Moonrise, but only for a few minutes. The rest of the time, humans only see 97%, 96% of the lit surface due to the offset/misalignment of the Earth and Moon .... but so what?

All that does is reinforce the globe mechanics. Doesn't actually show the Earth is Not a Globe.

Full Moon is a definition of where the Moon is in space, not of what each and every human can actually see.
I am not sure of the point the wiki is making. The argument seems to be 'If RET is true, a full moon is is not possible, but a full moon is not possible, therefore RET is not true'. The argument is valid, but not sound (the second first premise is false).

[edit] Sorry wrong way round. Fixed.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 24, 2018, 05:48:04 AM
I'm not sure what you've decided to do here, but well-informed REs will tell you simply that we all accept "Full Moon" to mean the fullest it gets that month. It does not need to be 100% illuminated to count as "full".
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2018, 06:17:56 PM
Tell that to the astronomers at the University of Nebraska:

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage1.html

Quote
A new moon is 0% illuminated (completely dark) and a full moon is 100% illuminated (fully lit)

Highline College:

https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/phases.htm

Quote
During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%.

Sonoma State University:

Quote
When 100% of the near side is illuminated, a full Moon is observed.

Etc etc etc.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 24, 2018, 06:24:45 PM
Tell that to the astronomers at the University of Nebraska:

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage1.html

Quote
A new moon is 0% illuminated (completely dark) and a full moon is 100% illuminated (fully lit)

Highline College:

https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/phases.htm

Quote
During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%.

Sonoma:

Quote
When 100% of the near side is illuminated, a full Moon is observed.

Etc etc etc.
Does any of that strike as if perhaps we're arguing semantics rather than the actual theory? I believe the point should still be valid even if several websites quote approximate numbers seemingly as if they were precise. Wouldn't you agree?

The point is, we do not generally observe 100% full moons. If you have a precise measurement that demonstrates how we DO see 100% full moons please share that. If you find a major scientific institution that claims a perfect 100% full moon observation, let us check that out together.

Perhaps we should contact each of those websites to correct them.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2018, 06:26:47 PM
Lets see evidence beyond an RET equation that the moon only gets 96 or 97% full as Edby states.

I can easily find a large number of quotes from astronomy and education websites that mentions the 100%.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 06:34:03 PM
Lets see evidence beyond an RET equation that the moon only gets 96 or 97% full as Edby states.

I can easily find a large number of quotes from astronomy and education websites that mentions the 100%.

On average yes. But the claim was that in RET it is impossible. It's not, as I showed.  It's perfectly possible.

Also, as noted above, there is a semantic issue. 'Fully lit' can mean 'receives light from the sun at every part visible from earth'. Indeed, it surely does mean that. I.e. no part is in shadow.

And once again, perfectly possible to receive all the light that it possibly could.

(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10019.0;attach=2032;image)
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2018, 06:39:30 PM
100% illumination of the moon's face means 100%.

Lets see evidence that contradicts those astronomers, showing that the full moon is only 97% lit.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 06:41:19 PM
100% illumination of the moon' face lit means 100%.

Lets see evidence that contradicts those astronomers, showing that the full moon is only 97% lit.

"During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%."

That means percent of the face illuminated. Do you follow?

Likewise: "When 100% of the near side is illuminated, a full Moon is observed. "

Absolutely correct. Not 98% etc.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2018, 06:42:42 PM
If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 06:45:59 PM
If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.
I don't think the 97% is a known thing at all. Full moon, 100% illuminated in the sense that all (=100%) of the side visible to the earth is lit up. Where do you get this 97% thing from?

Are you confusing it with libration? I think you are.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 06:50:06 PM
Does any of that strike as if perhaps we're arguing semantics rather than the actual theory? I believe the point should still be valid even if several websites quote approximate numbers seemingly as if they were precise. Wouldn't you agree?
They are not approximate numbers.

Remember a percent is one number (numerator) divided by another (denominator). The numerator is the amount lit by the sun. The denominator is the amount visible from earth. Full moon is when that number is 100%, i.e. every part visible from earth (which is clearly not all of the moon) is lit by the sun.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2018, 06:50:44 PM
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 06:52:24 PM
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
I am trying to explain what 'percent' means.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 07:06:49 PM
Do you accept that the moon's orbital plane is inclined by 5° to the ecliptic plane, or do you want evidence for that also?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 24, 2018, 07:17:46 PM
If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.
Ohhh... I completely misunderstood your position Tom. My mistake. I will attempt to clarify.

According to standard RE models, we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month. Furthermore, the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time.
I certainly do not dispute that. Does anyone dispute this? I believe we are all in agreement on this.

Tom Bishop is saying that we DO observe 100% perfect full moons every month from everywhere on Earth. Is that correct? Is this what all FEs believe?

This is the source of the argument and the confusion. Despite the fact that many websites will quote that the full moon is 100% illuminated, the RE model clearly shows that it should typically be marginally less than 100%. There is really no point in searching websites to see if they use numbers like this. I think we can agree that they could very well be rounding. The real question is whether we actually see perfect 100% full moons each month or not. If we DO see perfect 100% full moons, then the RE theory must be incorrect.

Do I have this right now?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 07:27:45 PM
If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.
Ohhh... I completely misunderstood your position Tom. My mistake. I will attempt to clarify.

According to standard RE models, we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month. Furthermore, the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time.
I certainly do not dispute that. Does anyone dispute this? I believe we are all in agreement on this.

Tom Bishop is saying that we DO observe 100% perfect full moons every month from everywhere on Earth. Is that correct? Is this what all FEs believe?

This is the source of the argument and the confusion. Despite the fact that many websites will quote that the full moon is 100% illuminated, the RE model clearly shows that it should typically be marginally less than 100%. There is really no point in searching websites to see if they use numbers like this. I think we can agree that they could very well be rounding. The real question is whether we actually see perfect 100% full moons each month or not. If we DO see perfect 100% full moons, then the RE theory must be incorrect.

Do I have this right now?
I think you have Tom right, as I mentioned way above. Tom thinks that in RET a 100% full moon is impossible, but a 100% full moon is possible in FET, therefore RET is false. Perfectly valid syllogism.

But now I am confused why you think a 100% full moon is impossible in RET. Why?

According to standard RE models, we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month. Furthermore, the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time.
I certainly do not dispute that. Does anyone dispute this? I believe we are all in agreement on this.
I agree that the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time. But again, why is  a 100% full moon impossible in RET?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 24, 2018, 07:52:10 PM
According to standard RE models, we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month. Furthermore, the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time.
I certainly do not dispute that. Does anyone dispute this? I believe we are all in agreement on this.
I agree that the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time. But again, why is  a 100% full moon impossible in RET?
Please re-read that. I was careful NOT to say that 100% full moon is impossible in RET. I said, "we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month." By this I mean that we get what we call a "full moon" every lunar month, but even though we call it "full," most of the time it is not perfectly 100% illuminated. Do you agree with this, or should I get into the math (5 degree inclination and all that...)?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 07:59:37 PM
According to standard RE models, we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month. Furthermore, the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time.
I certainly do not dispute that. Does anyone dispute this? I believe we are all in agreement on this.
I agree that the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time. But again, why is  a 100% full moon impossible in RET?
Please re-read that. I was careful NOT to say that 100% full moon is impossible in RET. I said, "we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month." By this I mean that we get what we call a "full moon" every lunar month, but even though we call it "full," most of the time it is not perfectly 100% illuminated. Do you agree with this, or should I get into the math (5 degree inclination and all that...)?
Agree, just checking.

[edit] But I wonder what evidence Tom wants. If it's mathematical models based on the usual astronomical assumptions, then he might object. We would need a proper telescope and about a year's worth of observations to show it.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 24, 2018, 08:06:35 PM
Timelapse of the moon for one month in 2007 showing libration. (Gif is 2MB so might take a few moments to load):

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/22esgh.jpg)
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 24, 2018, 08:12:44 PM
But I wonder what evidence Tom wants. If it's mathematical models based on the usual astronomical assumptions, then he might object. We would need a proper telescope and about a year's worth of observations to show it.

I would expect a single full-moon observation taken at high resolution should do. To avoid any claims of cheating, I suggest that Tom take the photo or appoint someone to take the photo on his behalf. We will measure it precisely and try to answer just how full it is. (We must be careful to include our margin of error on that.) We will then compare those results against predictions.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
FYI the next 9 full moons with % illumination, together with ecliptic latitude. So RET says that 100% illumination is infrequent (but not impossible).

But this will not satisfy Tom, because it is based on an RE model.

Date   Illuminated   Ecliptic lat
27-Jul-18   100%   -0 16
26-Aug-18   99.9%   -2 42
25-Sep-18   99.8%   -4 47
24-Oct-18   99.7%   -5 53
23-Nov-18   99.8%   -4 52
22-Dec-18   99.9%   -3 18
21-Jan-19   100.0%   -0 22
19-Feb-19   100.0%   2 07
21-Mar-19   99.9%   3 54
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 08:38:07 PM
I would expect a single full-moon observation taken at high resolution should do. To avoid any claims of cheating, I suggest that Tom take the photo or appoint someone to take the photo on his behalf. We will measure it precisely and try to answer just how full it is. (We must be careful to include our margin of error on that.) We will then compare those results against predictions.
I don't think this is possible. See the table above. How do we spot the 0.3% in 99.7%? I just tried taking a picture of the moon just now, and focusing, resolution etc is v difficult.

Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 25, 2018, 01:00:39 AM
I think you may have stumbled into my ultimate point.  ;)

However, the point is not made unless you also explain where you got those numbers. Where did you get this 99.7%? How is that consistent with RET?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 25, 2018, 07:51:30 AM
I think you may have stumbled into my ultimate point.  ;)

However, the point is not made unless you also explain where you got those numbers. Where did you get this 99.7%? How is that consistent with RET?
A software model which of course uses RET.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 25, 2018, 05:03:23 PM
I think you may have stumbled into my ultimate point.  ;)

However, the point is not made unless you also explain where you got those numbers. Where did you get this 99.7%? How is that consistent with RET?
A software model which of course uses RET.
The fact that it uses RET should cause no objections. Tom's point was that RET does not allow for 100% full moons. We need to show what RET actually predicts. I don't really think Tom is just searching for "gotchas" where a bunch of websites said 100% instead of 99.7%. I think he was expecting the prediction to come out much lower than that. (In fact, I expected it to come out much lower than that too). Can you show where that 99.7% comes from? The equations used to arrive at that? Or share what software model you pulled this from so that it can be scrutinized?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: model 29 on June 25, 2018, 05:16:00 PM
That linked wiki article is just too funny.  Zero understanding of scale, the moon's orbital 5 degree tilt, or even spelling. 
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 25, 2018, 05:57:18 PM
I think you may have stumbled into my ultimate point.  ;)

However, the point is not made unless you also explain where you got those numbers. Where did you get this 99.7%? How is that consistent with RET?
A software model which of course uses RET.
The fact that it uses RET should cause no objections. Tom's point was that RET does not allow for 100% full moons. We need to show what RET actually predicts. I don't really think Tom is just searching for "gotchas" where a bunch of websites said 100% instead of 99.7%. I think he was expecting the prediction to come out much lower than that. (In fact, I expected it to come out much lower than that too). Can you show where that 99.7% comes from? The equations used to arrive at that? Or share what software model you pulled this from so that it can be scrutinized?
Yes Tom's point was that RET does not allow for 100% full moons.

The software is Stellarium. I have been trying to work out how they calculate the illumination bit. It's clearly connected with the ecliptic latitude, as you can see from the table above.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 25, 2018, 06:30:52 PM
Chapter 51 of Jean Meeus' work is supposedly the place, but not for the faint hearted. I believe Stellarium used this.

http://edukacja.3bird.pl/download/fizyka/astronomia-jean-meeus-astronomical-algorithms.pdf
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: nickrulercreator on June 27, 2018, 01:39:52 AM
Here is a diagram showing the Earth and Moon to scale (not the sun), along with the Earth's shadow, and the Moon's orbital plane. As you can see the Moon has a lot of space to roam when in its "full" phase.

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-436752f5737da29a8b97efc4100c7741)

The moon could be close to the Earth's shadow, but not in it. Thus, we see 100%, but that's still rare. It's more common to see close, like 99.7%.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 02:11:23 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

The earth takes up 2 degrees of the moon's sky. The sun takes up 0.5 degrees of the moon's sky. How does the sun wrap around the earth?

With those attributes, the shadow should be increasing.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: model 29 on June 27, 2018, 02:20:39 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
  You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 02:42:57 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
  You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is seen to be smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 02:44:36 AM

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

Prove it, definitively.  Your assertions are totally meaningless.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 27, 2018, 02:48:50 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

The earth takes up 2 degrees of the moon's sky. The sun takes up 0.5 degrees of the moon's sky. How does the sun wrap around the earth?

With those attributes, the shadow should be increasing.
That's a separate question. Are we done with the 100% illumination thing? Are you happy with the 99.7%? I'm currently working on putting together a presentation to explain exactly where that number came from. (Spoiler alert: my sample comes up with 99.8%.) Since the question of the full moon's illumination is about what the standard model predicts and has nothing to do with FET, I would hope you might accept the explanation as the valid RE interpretation and update your wiki accordingly.

The shadow thing is interesting too, and I'm happy to jump into that one as well, but first I want to wrap up the 100% illumination thing. The standard RE model predicts the "full moon" will actually be anywhere from 99.7% to 100% illuminated. Would you like to see the math? Would you like to try to determine whether we can measure that amount of difference? Or would you prefer to accept this now and move on?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 02:51:16 AM

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

Prove it, definitively.  Your assertions are totally meaningless.

Here:

The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun.

How could the shadow be gone?

How do we see the sun through the earth?

Shrinking Shadow Debunked
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 02:52:27 AM

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

Prove it, definitively.  Your assertions are totally meaningless.

Here:

The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is smaller than the earth. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun.

How could the shadow be gone?

How do we see the sun through the earth?

That's not proof Tom.  Try again.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 02:59:53 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

The earth takes up 2 degrees of the moon's sky. The sun takes up 0.5 degrees of the moon's sky. How does the sun wrap around the earth?

With those attributes, the shadow should be increasing.
That's a separate question. Are we done with the 100% illumination thing? Are you happy with the 99.7%? I'm currently working on putting together a presentation to explain exactly where that number came from. (Spoiler alert: my sample comes up with 99.8%.) Since the question of the full moon's illumination is about what the standard model predicts and has nothing to do with FET, I would hope you might accept the explanation as the valid RE interpretation and update your wiki accordingly.

The shadow thing is interesting too, and I'm happy to jump into that one as well, but first I want to wrap up the 100% illumination thing. The standard RE model predicts the "full moon" will actually be anywhere from 99.7% to 100% illuminated. Would you like to see the math? Would you like to try to determine whether we can measure that amount of difference? Or would you prefer to accept this now and move on?

That conversation is still in progress. The size of the earth's shadow does matter in the scenario. We are still talking about that subject.

That's not proof Tom.  Try again.

Of course it's a proof. It disproves the whole concept entirely.

How do we see the sun through the earth?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 03:01:33 AM
That's not proof Tom.  Try again.

Of course it's a proof. It disproves the whole concept entirely.

How do we see the sun through the earth?

You've asserted a thought experiment, nothing substantive with false premises, the sun is not smaller than the Earth in the RE model.  In fact, it is 100 times the diameter.  Prove that a star, 1.4M kms in diameter, 150M kms away, that radiates light in all directions, can be blocked by a planet 13,000 kms in diameter at a distance of 149.9M kms.   You don't accept thought experiments from anyone, so I won't accept one from you.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 03:18:45 AM
It would seem to me that since the Sun is not in fact smaller than the Earth in the RE model that basic geometry would tell us that there should be a minimum distance that a viewer would have to be from the sun in order to receive its rays. I am not sure what that calculation is, but that would be important to your proof Tom
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: model 29 on June 27, 2018, 03:34:17 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
  You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is seen to be smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.
No Tom, with a sun that is bigger than Earth, Earth's shadow will become smaller further out. 
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 03:56:42 AM
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here it is again:

"The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth at that distance. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun."

How do we see the sun through the earth?

Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 04:06:51 AM
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here is the proof again:

    "The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth at that distance. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun."

How do we see the sun through the earth?

I dont see any proof here.  You haven't made any measurements, or observations.  At best this is a hypothesis.  Here is a guide to calculating umbra and penumbra (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950023025.pdf).  Perhaps you could just illustrate the errors in the guide?  Should be simple enough no?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: model 29 on June 27, 2018, 04:17:25 AM
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here is the proof again:

    "The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth at that distance. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun."

How do we see the sun through the earth?
Because as you move further away, Earth will appear smaller, but the sun will not appear as small (remember it is much larger and further away), and so Earth will appear smaller than the sun.  At this point, you will be receiving light from the sun. 

Earth's shadow shrinks the further it is from Earth. 
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 27, 2018, 05:58:19 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

The earth takes up 2 degrees of the moon's sky. The sun takes up 0.5 degrees of the moon's sky. How does the sun wrap around the earth?

With those attributes, the shadow should be increasing.
No.

Angular diameter of the sun or earth as seen from the moon doesn't figure into the shape of the earth's shadow. This size of the sun, earth and their distance apart is what dictates the size and shape of earth's shadow; and since the sun is much larger than the earth, earth's umbra decreases with distance, like a cone.

How or if that shadow is cast upon the moon is dependent on the size of the earth, size of the moon, their distance apart, and their alignment with the sun.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on June 27, 2018, 12:50:42 PM
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here it is again:

"The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth at that distance. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun."

How do we see the sun through the earth?
This isn't even a correct hypothesis. First you're talking about a location 'behind' the Earth such as where the moon is, where the Earth is still bigger than the sun in the sky. Then you talk about a location much farther back, where the Earth has shrunk enough to appear smaller than the sun (such as on Mars where Earth is similar in size to and will transit the sun, like Venus). Your 'proof' is nothing more than stringing two disconnected things together and claiming they in fact ARE connected.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on June 27, 2018, 02:14:57 PM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

Because it's an illustrative diagram, not a photograph?

The earth takes up 2 degrees of the moon's sky. The sun takes up 0.5 degrees of the moon's sky. How does the sun wrap around the earth?

With those attributes, the shadow should be increasing.

Whether it is shown increasing, parallel or decreasing, that has no impact on the point being made.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on June 27, 2018, 02:21:02 PM
"The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth at that distance. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet.

You cannot be at that point if the sun is seen to be smaller than the Earth. You wouldn't even see the sun. If the sun is 'seen' to be smaller than the Earth, the sun is eclipsed by the Earth, and you are, by definition, in the shadow of that eclipse.

The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun." How do we see the sun through the earth?

Don't agree that you would. You can figure out what the distances would and should be with basic geometry, why not try it that way?

Can we go back to the Moon now?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 27, 2018, 04:43:45 PM
For Tom (and everyone else). The mathematical investigation of just how much of the moon is illuminated under the standard RE model.
https://youtu.be/GNSFMLkY14E

This should not be controversial. This is only an evaluation of what the RE model says. Please review this.

tl;dr: I have calculated the illuminated fraction of the full moon to be as low as 99.8%, and I acknowledge it could get as low as 99.7% or as high as 100%.
I have also worked out that with a high-resolution photo, you CAN tell the difference between 99.6% and 100%. I see plenty of room here that you could experimentally show whether the moon is at the predicted amount of illumination or not.

Tom, please tell me, is 99.7% sufficiently far from 100% that you wish to challenge this further, or are you happy to acknowledge that RE predicts less than perfect full moons and we can move on?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on June 27, 2018, 05:15:11 PM
Fabulous video. That number depends on the maximum ecliptic latitude of 5 degrees. Tonight's full moon has a latitude of just over 2 degrees. Using the formula in that video gives an illumination of 99.977%. Camera is ready.

Note the ecliptic latitude on 27 July will be 16 arcminutes, which will be 100% illumination.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: TomInAustin on June 27, 2018, 07:49:25 PM
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

That rule would pretty much invalidate the FE theory, right?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: nickrulercreator on June 29, 2018, 02:24:29 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
  You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is seen to be smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

It's not a matter of what the Moon sees, though, nor the Sun's size in the sky apparent to Earth. It's a matter of the Sun's physical size in relation to the Earth. If the Sun is larger, it doesn't matter how far away the Sun is, the umbra of Earth's shadow will always decrease in size. That's how geometry works.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 06:47:31 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
  You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is seen to be smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

It's not a matter of what the Moon sees, though, nor the Sun's size in the sky apparent to Earth. It's a matter of the Sun's physical size in relation to the Earth. If the Sun is larger, it doesn't matter how far away the Sun is, the umbra of Earth's shadow will always decrease in size. That's how geometry works.

I believe that you are incorrect, Bobby is incorrect, and Rama Set is incorrect. The sun would need to be seen larger than the earth for the rays to reach the observer where the rays meet. It is a matter of what the observer sees. The answer to my problem was answered by model 29 above, where he states that where the rays meet the sun does get to be bigger than the earth due to different scales of perspective resizing. That is the only explanation to the conundrum. For that he gets a gold star.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 29, 2018, 06:57:51 AM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
  You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is seen to be smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

It's not a matter of what the Moon sees, though, nor the Sun's size in the sky apparent to Earth. It's a matter of the Sun's physical size in relation to the Earth. If the Sun is larger, it doesn't matter how far away the Sun is, the umbra of Earth's shadow will always decrease in size. That's how geometry works.

No, you are incorrect. Bobby is incorrect. And Rama Set is incorrect. The  sun would need to be larger than the earth for the rays to reach the observer where the rays meet. It is a matter of what the moon/observer sees. The answer to my problem was answered by model 29 above, where he states that where the rays meet the sun does get to be bigger than the moon due to different scales of perspective resizing. For that he gets a gold star.
Tom, have you reviewed my video where I attempted to explain how the full moon math really works? I sense a new video based on this shadow question.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: rabinoz on June 29, 2018, 09:09:00 AM
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but so is Tom Bishop.
Quote from: The Flat Earth
However, in order to see a full moon with 100% totality under a you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on. But according to the geometry of RET we would never see the daylight side face-on, otherwise the earth would get in the way of the sunlight. There should always be a portion of the moon that is unlit. 100% totality should be impossible, no matter how much mental gymnastics are done with the scale. If we are not looking at the daylight side face on, complete totality is impossible.

Tom Bishop has claimed that "100% is 100%" but we have edby's post.
FYI the next 9 full moons with % illumination, together with ecliptic latitude. So RET says that 100% illumination is infrequent (but not impossible).
But this will not satisfy Tom, because it is based on an RE model.
Date   Illuminated   Ecliptic lat
27-Jul-18   100%   -0 16
26-Aug-18   99.9%   -2 42
25-Sep-18   99.8%   -4 47
24-Oct-18   99.7%   -5 53
23-Nov-18   99.8%   -4 52
22-Dec-18   99.9%   -3 18
21-Jan-19   100.0%   -0 22
19-Feb-19   100.0%   2 07
21-Mar-19   99.9%   3 54
The lowest illumination is 99.7%, which rounds to 100%! 
Surely if one quotes the integer value 100% one can assume the actual value is between 99.5% and 100.5%.

On a related topic, two years ago I started a thread claiming that on a flat earth a full moon is impossible to everyone How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 10:22:27 PM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4898.msg94696#msg94696).
Though it really claimed that no-one on a flat earth could see a full moon.

Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on June 29, 2018, 10:38:27 AM
The sun would need to be seen larger than the earth for the rays to reach the observer where the rays meet. It is a matter of what the observer sees.

So, all you're doing is drawing a cone, with the base diameter equal to the size of the sun, and placing the observer at or above the point?  The Earth is at some point between base and point, where its diameter equals the cross-section of the cone.

If the observer is AT the point, size of Earth matches their view of the Sun. You only get to see the Sun if you move the observer out beyond the point. No? 

The answer to my problem was answered by model 29 above, where he states that where the rays meet the sun does get to be bigger than the earth due to different scales of perspective resizing. That is the only explanation to the conundrum.

No, the sun only gets to be bigger if the observer is beyond that point. If he is AT the point, size of Earth and Sun in his field of view are identical, so the Sun is fully obscured.

As he moves away from the point, a circle of sun becomes visible AROUND the Earth

What IS the "conundrum" ?  You don't see the sun THROUGH the Earth, for the Earth will be in silhouette in the middle of the Sun.

A Full Moon is when the face toward the Sun is fully illuminated. We, the observers, by definition, MUST be offset to one side or other of this, or else we would be casting a shadow on the Moon (an eclipse). Therefore, our view MUST be of less than 100%, since we're looking at it from an angle of between 0 and 5% away from the Sun/Moon plane.

What's the issue here?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on June 29, 2018, 12:18:43 PM
Tell that to the astronomers at the University of Nebraska:
Quote
A new moon is 0% illuminated (completely dark) and a full moon is 100% illuminated (fully lit)

Highline College:
Quote
During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%.

Sonoma State University:
Quote
When 100% of the near side is illuminated, a full Moon is observed.

You really don't think that they're approximating for the purposes of basic, starting-point educational material (as opposed to advanced astronomical studies)?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Rama Set on June 29, 2018, 12:46:47 PM
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
  You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is seen to be smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

It's not a matter of what the Moon sees, though, nor the Sun's size in the sky apparent to Earth. It's a matter of the Sun's physical size in relation to the Earth. If the Sun is larger, it doesn't matter how far away the Sun is, the umbra of Earth's shadow will always decrease in size. That's how geometry works.

I believe that you are incorrect, Bobby is incorrect, and Rama Set is incorrect. The sun would need to be seen larger than the earth for the rays to reach the observer where the rays meet. It is a matter of what the observer sees. The answer to my problem was answered by model 29 above, where he states that where the rays meet the sun does get to be bigger than the earth due to different scales of perspective resizing. That is the only explanation to the conundrum. For that he gets a gold star.

It actually doesn’t matter what you believe. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. You are simply incorrect in your conception of the problem.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 01:50:23 PM
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here it is again:

"The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth at that distance. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun."

How do we see the sun through the earth?
A dime hiding an elephant:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/szzjft.jpg)

A dime not hiding an elephant:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2znpekn.jpg)
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 02:00:03 PM
Quote
Tom, have you reviewed my video where I attempted to explain how the full moon math really works? I sense a new video based on this shadow question.

I haven't looked at that one yet. I'll look at it in a bit.

It actually doesn’t matter what you believe. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. You are simply incorrect in your conception of the problem.

As I said earlier, what the observer sees does matter. It is not irrelevant. model 29 was correct in his previous assessment. At the distance of the moon the earth would seem bigger then the sun, and at the distance where the umbra meets, the sun would seem bigger than the earth. Look at the images Bobby posted above. Look at what happens to the size of the sun and the earth as you get out further than the moon:

How to Calculate the Angular Size of the Sun (https://sciencing.com/calculate-angular-diameter-sun-8592633.html) --

Quote
Our sun is enormous compared to the Earth, measuring 109 times the diameter of the planet. When the great distance between the sun and Earth is factored in, however, the sun appears small in the sky. This phenomenon is known as the angular diameter. Astronomers use a set formula to calculate the relative sizes of celestial objects. The size and distance of objects is directly related; while the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, it is also 400 times farther away, making each object appear to be the same size in the sky -- and making solar eclipses possible.

Multiply the distance between the sun and the observer by 2. For example, to find the angular diameter of the sun as it appears on Earth, multiply 93 million miles by 2 to get 186 million.

Divide 865,000 -- the actual diameter of the sun in miles -- by the result from the previous step. The result is 0.00465.

Calculate the arctangent of the result from the previous step. On a scientific calculator, the arctangent function may be listed as either "tan-1" or "atan." The arctangent of 0.00465 is 0.26642.

Multiply the arctangent by 2. This result, 0.533 degrees, is the angular diameter of the sun as it appears on Earth.

Angular Diameter of the Sun from the Earth

1.) 93,000,000 (dist from sun to earth) x 2 = 186,000,000
2.) 865,000 (diameter of sun) / 186,000,000 = 0.00465
3.) Arctan (0.00465) = 0.26642
4.) 0.26642 x 2 = 0.533 degrees

Simplified formula

2(Arctan (::Diameter of Sun:: / (::Dist from Sun to Earth:: x 2))) in degrees

2(Arctan (865000 / (93000000 x 2))) in degrees

Output if the above line from Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/) = 0.533 degrees


Angular Size of the Sun from the Moon

Average distance between earth and moon = 238900 miles (Source: Google)

Distance from Moon to Sun if Moon is directly behind earth
93,000,000 + 238900 = 93,238,900

2(Arctan (865000 / (93238900 x 2))) in degrees = 0.5315 degrees

Angular Size of the Earth from the Moon

Dist from Earth to Moon = 238,900
Diameter of Earth = 7917.5

2(Arctan (7917.5 / (238900 x 2))) in degrees = 1.899 degrees

At this point, the earth is bigger than the sun.

Angular Size of Sun from the Moon, if the moon were 6x further from the Earth

93,000,000 + (6 x 238,900) = 94,433,400

2(Arctan (865000 / (94433400 x 2))) in degrees = 0.5248

Angular Size of Earth from the Moon, if the moon were 6x further from the earth

Distance from Earth to Moon (x6): 6 x 238,900 = 1,433,400
Diameter of Earth = 7917.5

2(Arctan (7917.5 / (1433400 x 2))) in degrees = 0.3165

As we can see, now the sun is bigger.

Now lets get the value for the length of the umbra:

According to http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html

Quote
The Earth's umbra is ~1.4 Million km long:

    About 3.7x the mean Earth-Moon distance.

Angular Size of Sun from the Moon, if the moon were 3.7x further from the Earth

93,000,000 + (3.7 x 238,900) = 93,883,930

2(Arctan (865000 / (93883930 x 2))) in degrees = 0.5279

Angular Size of Earth from the Moon, if the moon were 3.7x further from the earth

Distance from Earth to Moon (x3.7): 3.7 x 238,900 =  883,930
Diameter of Earth = 7917.5

2(Arctan (7917.5 / (883930 x 2))) in degrees = 0.5132

The sun is slightly bigger at that distance, answers the problem I asked earlier, and shows that what the observer sees is relevant.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 29, 2018, 04:11:03 PM
Regarding the shadow issue. I haven't read it all (I admit it... it's a long discussion), but if you all back up a tad, you may realize that everyone now agrees. In fact, both explanations (perspective and straight-line) are perfectly good explanations of the exact same thing.

Straight-Line:
Just draw an orthographic (no perspective) side view of the problem. Draw lines from the top and bottom of the sun that are tangent to the top and bottom of the Earth (top to top, bottom to bottom). Between these lines, the Earth blocks all sunlight (Umbra). Draw any other line from any point in the Sun, and you'll see that it cannot get into that region. That region is completely shadowed.

What is the penumbra? Draw a line from the top of the Sun tangent to the bottom of the Earth. The region between this new line and the top of the umbra is where the top of the Sun is blocked. This region is partially shadowed. The closer you get to the umbra, the more of the Sun that is blocked. Do the same thing from the bottom of the Sun to the top of the Earth. You have now completed the penumbra.

If you draw this diagram to scale, you will see whether the 2 components of the shadow converge or diverge. What you'll see is that it is the relative sizes of the 2 bodies that determines that. Moving the Earth closer to or farther from the sun will not change whether the shadow converges or diverges, but it WILL change the angle of convergence.

Perspective:
In this analysis, consider yourself an observer standing on the moon, and project your line of sight back towards the Sun. (It's still easier to do this in an orthographic view, but we're trying to explain this from a perspective point of view.) Do this from a first-person view instead of our side view projection. The Sun should be a circle in the sky. The size of that circle depends on how far from the Sun you are. Now draw the Earth in front of the Sun. It's size also varies depending on the distance. From where you're looking, what part of the Sun can you see, and what part is blocked by the Earth? The fraction of the Sun still visible around the Earth tells you how shadowed your position is. If you cannot see the Sun, the Sun's light cannot hit you. If you cannot see the Sun at all, you're in the umbra. If the Sun is partially blocked, you're in the penumbra. Boom! and we did it with perspective.

The answers are 100% identical, and the reason for this stems from an understanding of what perspective is and how light works.

Light generally travels in straight lines, and it is this property that gives rise to perspective. There are exceptions to the "straight lines" rule, but we do not call these exceptions "perspective."
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 04:11:35 PM
Look at the images Bobby posted above. Look at what happens to the size of the sun and the earth as you get out further than the moon:

Yes, please. Look at the images I posted. They answer your earlier posts:

Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

All the angular dimensions you've posted are based on the fact that an earth smaller than the sun casts a conical shadow. Whether or not the earth eclipses the sun depend on whether the observer is inside that cone-shaped umbra or not.

"A dime can hide an elephant," but only if lined up so that the eye is within the "shadow" of the dime.

And the angular diameter if the elephant and the dime depends on distances. Move away, and the light from the elephant "wraps around" the dime.

Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 04:15:51 PM
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Fair enough. Can we discard these claims then?

TFES Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon)

Quote
"The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

Quote
"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."

Quote
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."

Show me evidence for how a sun can illuminate a moon, both of which are above the surface plane of the earth such that a full moon ("bottom" of the moon, remember) can be seen from earth.

Model that. Show me evidence of hiw that can work.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 04:55:37 PM

Show me evidence for how a sun can illuminate a moon, both of which are above the surface plane of the earth such that a full moon ("bottom" of the moon, remember) can be seen from earth.

Model that. Show me evidence of hiw that can work.

Here's a cross-section of flat earth with sun and moon 3000 miles (or so) above the earth's surface:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/29lodmx.jpg)

Fix the diagram or move the moon to where it would be so that its "bottom" is fully illuminated by the sun resulting in a full moon visible from earth.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 05:34:28 PM
Bobby, that seems to be a bit off topic to the topic of the Impossibility of the Full Moon in Round Earth Theory. Can you please repost that in the Flat Earth Theory forum, or can we get a moderator split that. We can go over the Flat Earth perspective/electromagnetic accelerator explanations there, and maybe improve the Wiki article. I'm looking at ICanScienceThat's video that he made and would prefer to keep on this topic.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 05:51:26 PM
Bobby, that seems to be a bit off topic to the topic of the Impossibility of the Full Moon in Round Earth Theory. Can you please repost that in the Flat Earth Theory forum, or can we get a moderator split that. We can go over the Flat Earth perspective/electromagnetic accelerator explanations there, and maybe improve the Wiki article. I'm looking at ICanScienceThat's video that he made and would prefer to keep on this topic.
Fine. I'll repost in a new topic, but it's in response to statements you've made in this one and I would like to be able to cross-reference your statements made on this topic with those you make on that one, and vice versa, for consistency.

I detect errors in analysis of round earth full moon understanding while ignoring gross disparities in the full moon explanation in a flat earth model, and I consider the matters linked.

A similar consideration is with regard to what you consider as "evidence" and what you discount or reject on the basis of lack of evidence. So, keep this topic in mind when (if) you respond to that one.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 09:45:07 PM
While I wait for you to answer the flat earth full moon challenge on the other topic, here's something to defend the spherical earth full moon question.

This is a not-to-scale diagram of the earth eclipsing the sun from the vantage point of the moon. This is the "dime hiding an elephant" metaphor you are fond of citing. Due to the sizes of the earth and sun, and the distance of the moon from the earth, the angular diameters of the sun and the earth are nearly identical (some of the time) and so when the moon is inside that conical shadow area (the umbra), the earth/dime will cover the sun/elephant. That's a lunar eclipse. (I couldn't find an image of the earth from the night side with a transparent background, and rather than spend time making it myself I just used an day-side illuminated earth image. It's an illustration anyway, so roll with it.)

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/sb4ltv.jpg)

But the moon's orbit is inclined and doesn't always pass into the earth's sun shadow when it is on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. When it passes into the penumbra, it's partially shaded from the sun, but the sun is still "peaking" around the edge of the earth:

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/9r6af9.jpg)

That's a partial lunar eclipse, and the "dime" is not hiding the "elephant."

Then there's the more common occurrence: the non-eclipsed "full" moon:

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/znq6hk.jpg)

The side of the moon facing earth is still fully illuminated by the sun, but the moon is not inside of earth's umbra or penumbra. The alignment is off for an eclipse and from the moon, the earth is out of the way from a direct view to the sun. So the dime isn't hiding the elephant in the majority of sun/earth/moon alignments.
 
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2018, 12:19:53 AM
Bobby, look at the video ICanScienceThat made for us. Even with that scenario, a 100% full moon is still not possible:

For Tom (and everyone else). The mathematical investigation of just how much of the moon is illuminated under the standard RE model.
https://youtu.be/GNSFMLkY14E (https://youtu.be/GNSFMLkY14E)

ICanScienceThat seems to be suggesting that the İntikam was technically right in the wiki article (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory) that a monthly 100% full moon is  for the most part does not happen and that astronomy is wrong/astronomers are wrong when they write their astronomy books. The moon will be either offset from center or blocked by the shadow of the earth, preventing a 100% full moon. That seems like a good answer to me. I don't have an issue with that explanation.

In the Wiki article İntikam does say that the full moon is possible for a short period of time when the moon is rising, which seems to suggest that Inkitam does admit that it is a possible, but a rare occurrence. But since the moon can't get directly behind the earth, I would question the idea of a rare full moon that is going around.

I appreciate all of the effort it took to make that video. Very good work.

I tend to see this particular subject as somewhat fruitless, especially as there do not seem to be many high resolution images of the moon at the exact point in time when it is the fullest.

While Inkitam appears to be correct, and I approve of his investigations, I can't see that it takes us anywhere further except to say that astronomy texts are wrong where they say or imply that the full moon goes to 100% every month in the Round Earth model. Unfortunately Inkitam is not here to give us any further clarification on where he was meaning to take the idea.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 30, 2018, 12:35:27 AM
I'm okay with that answer too. But then I'm okay with considering 99.99-whatever % full as being 100% full. I'm not Mr. Spock and won't get bent out of shape if the threshold for "full" is 99-99.9+% full, with a limit of 100% not being technically possible.

I'm only responding to things you said like "why does the shadow narrow?" or "a dime can hide an elephant" as if distance and alignment have no bearing.

Good job proving a perfect 100% full moon viewed from earth isn't possible. So what? It's a picayune point that, in the arguing, you elevated to critical undermining of RE model thru misrepresentation of perspective concepts and geometry.

Now, there's a counter-challenge to FE full moon waiting for your response.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 30, 2018, 07:02:53 AM
Bobby, look at the video ICanScienceThat made for us. Even with that scenario, a 100% full moon is still not possible:

For Tom (and everyone else). The mathematical investigation of just how much of the moon is illuminated under the standard RE model.
https://youtu.be/GNSFMLkY14E (https://youtu.be/GNSFMLkY14E)

ICanScienceThat seems to be suggesting that the İntikam was technically right in the wiki article (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory) that a monthly 100% full moon is  for the most part does not happen and that astronomy is wrong/astronomers are wrong when they write their astronomy books. The moon will be either offset from center or blocked by the shadow of the earth, preventing a 100% full moon. That seems like a good answer to me. I don't have an issue with that explanation.

In the Wiki article İntikam does say that the full moon is possible for a short period of time when the moon is rising, which seems to suggest that Inkitam does admit that it is a possible, but a rare occurrence. But since the moon can't get directly behind the earth, I would question the idea of a rare full moon that is going around.

I appreciate all of the effort it took to make that video. Very good work.

I tend to see this particular subject as somewhat fruitless, especially as there do not seem to be many high resolution images of the moon at the exact point in tine when it is the fullest.

While Inkitam appears to be correct, and I approve of his investigations, I can't see that it takes us anywhere further except to say that astronomy texts are wrong where they say or imply that the full moon goes to 100% every month in the Round Earth model. Unfortunately Inkitam is not here to give us any further clarification on where he was meaning to take the idea.

I do not recall saying that the 100% full moon was not possible. I don't want you to misrepresent my work. I would like you to understand that the full moon is not 100.0% illuminated every night.

I would appreciate it if you'd remove that section from the Wiki because it is a misrepresentation of what astronomy texts say. They may say 100%, and my point is that 99.7% is certainly close enough to 100% that you would stop quibbling over it. 99.7% is not the MAXIMUM illumination. I clearly stated that was the MINIMUM. And I actually said it goes to 100%.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 30, 2018, 07:47:55 AM
If you want to know what the RE model says, it can be found right here:
https://www.mooncalc.org

Let me suggest you check it for June 28th. Scrub the time and check it. It predicted 99.9%. Next check July 27th. If you scrub it, you'll see that it peaks at 100.0%, but we in California aren't going to see that. They'll see it in New Delhi though.

There are 2 points I want to make clear here.
1) Don't make inaccurate claims about what RE says. These things can be checked, so let's try to keep it accurate. Nobody here is trying to win the argument by misrepresenting the other side. (Ok some people are doing that, but that isn't what you or I are doing right?)
2) If you wish to show that the observed amount of illumination does not match the predicted amount of illumination, you'll need to measure the observed amount of illumination. Importantly, you need to note the error margin of your measurement. If the prediction lies outside of your error margin, then you have a point.

#2 there is one of the biggest issues that I want to stress. In order to make a useful determination, you need to make sure that the precision of your measurement makes the results clear. In my video with a 4k image, I was able to show that image was 99.6% with an error margin of +-0.1%. Maybe you can do a little better, but if +-0.1% is the best we can do, you will never be able to determine for sure if the moon is ever perfectly illuminated. The best you'll be able to do is say it's between 99.9 and 100.0%. If you got that error margin down to +-0.001%, the best you could do would be to say the moon was 99.999 - 100.000% illuminated.

We need to agree on what "perfectly illuminated" means, and then we can say whether we've hit that mark. I'll personally place that margin at +-0.1%. If you want to go to +-0.05%, I'll make that leap with you. I can demonstrate with math that the model clearly hits that mark, and mooncalc agrees with that.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2018, 08:15:41 AM
I would appreciate it if you'd remove that section from the Wiki because it is a misrepresentation of what astronomy texts say. They may say 100%, and my point is that 99.7% is certainly close enough to 100% that you would stop quibbling over it. 99.7% is not the MAXIMUM illumination. I clearly stated that was the MINIMUM. And I actually said it goes to 100%.

One might suggest that since Inkitham's good artwork is apparently more correct than dozens of astronomy websites on the internet that were created by astonomers and educators, many which define a full moon as 100% illumination and say that a full moon happens every month, then perhaps it is Inkitham's artwork that should stay up and it is those website that should be changed.

You said that it goes to 100% on rare events, but you did not show it. You did a good job showing the 99.7, and I will give you good credit for that. Lets try to do it for the closest the moon could get to the earth's umbra.

From earlier:

Quote
Angular Size of the Sun from the Moon

Average distance between earth and moon = 238900 miles (Source: Google)

Distance from Moon to Sun if Moon is directly behind earth
93,000,000 + 238900 = 93,238,900

2(Arctan (865000 / (93238900 x 2))) in degrees = 0.5315 degrees

Angular Size of the Earth from the Moon

Dist from Earth to Moon = 238,900
Diameter of Earth = 7917.5

2(Arctan (7917.5 / (238900 x 2))) in degrees = 1.899 degrees

Assume that the moon sees 100% of the sun's body sitting right on top of the earth. To get the angular distance from the center of the sun to the center of the earth we can do the following:

0.5315 / 2 = 0.2656
1.899 / 2 = 0.9495

Distance from center of sun to center of earth = 1.2151 degrees. I estimate that this should be the closest the moon can get to the earth and be fully illuminated.

Plop that into your calculations in place of the 5.x degrees and see what you get.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2018, 08:48:38 AM
1) Don't make inaccurate claims about what RE says.

So far İntikam has been correct. You showed it yourself.

This website by astronomers and educators at the University of Nebraska says that a Full Moon is 100% illumination, and it happens every lunar month on a Full Moon:

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage1.html

Quote
A new moon is 0% illuminated (completely dark) and a full moon is 100% illuminated (fully lit).

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage2.html

Quote
The time it takes the moon to complete one orbit around the earth (with respect to the sun) is also the amount of time it takes to complete one cycle of phases. This period, known as the synodic month, is about 29.5 days

You even agree that a 100% Full Moon doesn't happen every month (assuming that it exists). The page was written under the direction of Dr. Kevin Lee (http://physics.unl.edu/~klee/lee.html), who should know better.

Why not lobby to take this website down rather than the one that inspired you to prove them wrong?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: rabinoz on June 30, 2018, 08:50:16 AM
1) Don't make inaccurate claims about what RE says.

So far İntikam has been correct. You showed it yourself.

This website by astronomers at the University of Nebraska says that a full moon is 100% illumination, and it happens every month on a Full Moon: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage1.html

Why not lobby to take this website down instead?
Why?
The observed illumination of the full moon can be from 99.7% (which rounds to 100%) to 100%.
If I specify that the temperature, T, as 22C, I do not mean that the temperature is exactly 22.0000C, but that 21.5C < T < 22.5C.
Likewise, why would anyone expect 100% illumination to be exactly 100.0000% and not simply greater than 99.5%.
The topic question is "Full moon impossible?" and while all full moons on the globe may not be 100.0% but some can be that close.

Now go and fix up your flat earth model because the lunar geometry in the Wiki means that many people  (even those directly under the moon) could not even see 50% illumination.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on June 30, 2018, 11:06:22 AM
1) Don't make inaccurate claims about what RE says.

So far İntikam has been correct. You showed it yourself.

This website by astronomers and educators at the University of Nebraska says that a Full Moon is 100% illumination, and it happens every lunar month on a Full Moon:

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage1.html

Quote
A new moon is 0% illuminated (completely dark) and a full moon is 100% illuminated (fully lit).

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage2.html

Quote
The time it takes the moon to complete one orbit around the earth (with respect to the sun) is also the amount of time it takes to complete one cycle of phases. This period, known as the synodic month, is about 29.5 days

You even agree that a 100% Full Moon doesn't happen every month (assuming that it exists). The page was written under the direction of Dr. Kevin Lee (http://physics.unl.edu/~klee/lee.html), who should know better.

Why not lobby to take this website down rather than the one that inspired you to prove them wrong?

Once again

You really don't think that they're approximating for the purposes of basic, starting-point educational material (as opposed to advanced astronomical studies)?

I think that's what they're doing, so see no reason to dispute or correct them. You're quoting introductory material as if it's the be-all and end-all of research. It's not. If you want to quote be-all and end-all, find some genuine textbooks, journals and papers.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on June 30, 2018, 11:09:05 AM
The sun is slightly bigger at that distance, answers the problem I asked earlier, and shows that what the observer sees is relevant.

Yes, if the observer is farther away than the point of the cone, he sees the Earth in silhouette, with a ring of Sun around it. If he is closer than the point of the cone, he sees only the shadow side of the Earth.

What does this prove? What's your point?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on June 30, 2018, 11:14:40 AM
Bobby, look at the video ICanScienceThat made for us. Even with that scenario, a 100% full moon is still not possible:

Even if that is the case, so what?


I can't see that it takes us anywhere further except to say that astronomy texts are wrong where they say or imply that the full moon goes to 100% every month in the Round Earth model.

Are you saying that ALL astronomy texts are wrong? Have you read any advanced ones, or are you just quoting those entry-level ones that you mentioned above?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 30, 2018, 12:47:06 PM
I do not recall saying that the 100% full moon was not possible.
I'll say it. I did say it. Tom's right. 100% full moon is not possible. "100%" is rounded up from 99.9+% and isn't really worth arguing about, IMO. What's the significance of whether or not 100% illumination of the moon, as seen from earth, is possible? Tom's right, but it's a nitpick of the highest order. Why debate it? 

Earth isn't a perfect sphere either, but we can call it a sphere. If someone objects that it's actually an oblate spheroid, I'm not going to argue that it's not. I'll just groan and move on rather than be distracted by the pedant.

Edit:
A Space.com 2010 article on this (https://www.space.com/8965-tonight-full-moon-won-full.html)
2004 Joe Rao article (cached) (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r9Ym_7t3RFcJ:www.nbcnews.com/id/4402294/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/full-moon-merely-fallacy/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#.WzfXwdJKiUk)
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 30, 2018, 08:10:41 PM
I would appreciate it if you'd remove that section from the Wiki because it is a misrepresentation of what astronomy texts say. They may say 100%, and my point is that 99.7% is certainly close enough to 100% that you would stop quibbling over it. 99.7% is not the MAXIMUM illumination. I clearly stated that was the MINIMUM. And I actually said it goes to 100%.

One might suggest that since Inkitham's good artwork is apparently more correct than dozens of astronomy websites on the internet that were created by astonomers and educators, many which define a full moon as 100% illumination and say that a full moon happens every month, then perhaps it is Inkitham's artwork that should stay up and it is those website that should be changed.

You said that it goes to 100% on rare events, but you did not show it. You did a good job showing the 99.7, and I will give you good credit for that. Lets try to do it for the closest the moon could get to the earth's umbra.

From earlier:

Quote
Angular Size of the Sun from the Moon

Average distance between earth and moon = 238900 miles (Source: Google)

Distance from Moon to Sun if Moon is directly behind earth
93,000,000 + 238900 = 93,238,900

2(Arctan (865000 / (93238900 x 2))) in degrees = 0.5315 degrees

Angular Size of the Earth from the Moon

Dist from Earth to Moon = 238,900
Diameter of Earth = 7917.5

2(Arctan (7917.5 / (238900 x 2))) in degrees = 1.899 degrees

Assume that the moon sees 100% of the sun's body sitting right on top of the earth. To get the angular distance from the center of the sun to the center of the earth we can do the following:

0.5315 / 2 = 0.2656
1.899 / 2 = 0.9495

Distance from center of sun to center of earth = 1.2151 degrees. I estimate that this should be the closest the moon can get to the earth and be fully illuminated.

Plop that into your calculations in place of the 5.x degrees and see what you get.
I haven't bothered to double-check your numbers. I just did as you asked and plugged it into my formula. For an observer standing on a direct line between Earth and moon (at 1.2151 latitude), the moon's illumination would be 99.989%. Farther away from the equator, that number INCREASES. As I pointed out already, that's well below the tolerance of my simple photo analysis method to determine any difference between that and 100%. To the nearest 1/10th of 1 percent, That's actually 100.0%.

Re-reading the wiki, I'll agree that the words there aren't technically wrong. But they are very misleading. The diagram is correct, and it actually DOES show that the moon is illuminated by 100% in the extreme case. That would be the case I was alluding to where the observer is well above the equator. It is the wording that is misleading. The wording seems to suggest that RET predicts we'd never see a full moon. What RET predicts is that the full moon almost always has a tiny little sliver of darkness on it that you'd need a telescope to notice. But if you break out a telescope, you can see it.

As far as the websites that say 100%. They are correct unless they say 100.0%. And as the diagram on the wiki shows, even perfect illumination is technically possible - just not everywhere on Earth, and not every month.

The wiki article currently says, "However, in order to see a full moon with 100% totality under a you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on. But according to the geometry of RET we would never see the daylight side face-on, otherwise the earth would get in the way of the sunlight. There should always be a portion of the moon that is unlit. 100% totality should be impossible, no matter how much mental gymnastics are done with the scale. If we are not looking at the daylight side face on, complete totality is impossible."

Since I insist that is not Tom's intention to deliberately mislead anyone, and we've all agreed that RET predicts the typical full moon to range from 99.7% to 99.99%, perhaps that is worth noting on there. We could just add a single sentence like so:
"However, in order to see a full moon with 100% totality under a you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on. But according to the geometry of RET we would never see the daylight side face-on, otherwise the earth would get in the way of the sunlight. There should always be a portion of the moon that is unlit. 100% totality should be impossible, no matter how much mental gymnastics are done with the scale. If we are not looking at the daylight side face on, complete totality is impossible. RET predicts full moons that range from 99.7% to 99.99% illuminated when there isn't an eclipse."

What do you say to that?

Bobby's link to the Space.com article is a really good one. Very concise and clear. Not mathy at all. Good read.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2018, 10:04:35 PM
Bobby, look at the video ICanScienceThat made for us. Even with that scenario, a 100% full moon is still not possible:

Even if that is the case, so what?


I can't see that it takes us anywhere further except to say that astronomy texts are wrong where they say or imply that the full moon goes to 100% every month in the Round Earth model.

Are you saying that ALL astronomy texts are wrong? Have you read any advanced ones, or are you just quoting those entry-level ones that you mentioned above?

Those university courses are teaching astronomers. Can you find the courses that are teaching astronomers correct things?

The US Navy is the US authority on Sun and Moon astronomy. And even they say that the moon goes to 100% fullness every month:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/moon_phases.php

Quote
The percent of the Moon's surface illuminated is a more refined, quantitative description of the Moon's appearance than is the phase. Considering the Moon as a circular disk, the ratio of the area illuminated by direct sunlight to its total area is the fraction of the Moon's surface illuminated; multiplied by 100, it is the percent illuminated. At New Moon the percent illuminated is 0; at First and Last Quarters it is 50%; and at Full Moon it is 100%. During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%.

Quote
Although Full Moon occurs each month at a specific date and time, the Moon's disk may appear to be full for several nights in a row if it is clear.


Quote
Following waning crescent is New Moon, beginning a repetition of the complete phase cycle of 29.5 days average duration. The time in days counted from the time of New Moon is called the Moon's "age". Each complete cycle of phases is called a "lunation".

Because the cycle of the phases is shorter than most calendar months, the phase of the Moon at the very beginning of the month usually repeats at the very end of the month. When there are two Full Moons in a month (which occurs, on average, every 2.7 years), the second one is called a "Blue Moon". [/b]
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2018, 10:06:10 PM
Problem #2

As we discussed earlier, at the equator a 100% Full Moon is impossible in the Round Earth Theory. 99.989% illumination was the maximum value at the equator, on those rare occasions when the moon is closest to the umbra. A Full Moon may be possible at very high latitudes on rare occasions when the moon is lowest near the earth's umbra, however.

The US NAVY Round Earth calculator has Moon Illumination values:

Ie.

0.97 illuminated
0.98 illuminated
1.00 illuminated

Link: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

Lets look at the lunar eclipse for Jan 31, 2018

On Form B we put in the following:

Object: Moon
Year: 2018
Month: January
Day: 30 (the day before the Full Moon)

Longitude: 0 West
Latitude: 0 North

0N, 0W is the Prime Meridian, and sits on the equator: https://www.thoughtco.com/prime-meridian-and-the-equator-intersect-4070819
 
On the previous day before the Full Moon, on Jan 30 2018, at the equator, we see:

Quote
Astronomical Applications Dept.                                               
U.S. Naval Observatory                                                       
Washington, DC 20392-5420
                                                   
                                                                             
   o  ,    o  ,                                                               
   0 00,   0 00
                                                             
Altitude and Azimuth of the Moon                                             
Jan 30, 2018
                                                                 
Universal Time
                                                               
          Altitude    Azimuth    Fraction                                     
                      (E of N)  Illuminated
                                 
 h  m         o           o                                                   
                                                                             
                                                                             
00:00       61.7       316.7       0.96
00:10       60.0       313.6       0.96
00:20       58.2       310.8       0.96
00:30       56.4       308.4       0.96
 
...

23:20       70.7        13.7       0.99
23:30       71.1         6.8       0.99
23:40       71.3       359.6       1.00
23:50       71.1       352.5       1.00

I edited out a bunch of lines for brevity, to only show the beginning of the day and the end of the day. The Fraction Illuminated gradually rages from 0.96 to 1.00 on that day. Over the day it hits 0.97 illumination, 0.98 illumination, 0.99 illumination, and then 1.00 illumination.

Next we do the same thing as above, but we put in Jan 31st, the day of the Full Moon:

Quote
Astronomical Applications Dept.                                               
U.S. Naval Observatory                                                       
Washington, DC 20392-5420
                                                   
                                                                             
   o  ,    o  ,                                                               
   0 00,   0 00
                                                             
Altitude and Azimuth of the Moon                                             
Jan 31, 2018
                                                                 
Universal Time
                                                               
          Altitude    Azimuth    Fraction                                     
                      (E of N)  Illuminated
                                 
 h  m         o           o                                                   
                                                                             
                                                                             
00:00       70.7       345.5       1.00
00:10       69.9       339.0       1.00
00:20       69.0       333.0       1.00
00:30       67.8       327.7       1.00

...

23:20       65.0        49.3       1.00
23:30       66.8        45.7       1.00
23:40       68.5        41.4       1.00
23:50       70.0        36.4       1.00

I again edited out a bunch of lines for brevity, but the NAVY says that the equator saw a 100% full moon throughout that entire day.


So what gives? The Flat Earther Inkitham's 10 year old diagram that he scrawled on a paint application is right about astronomy, but the authority on the Sun and Moon, the US Navy, is wrong about astronomy?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 30, 2018, 10:21:45 PM
As we discussed earlier, at the equator a 100% Full Moon is impossible in the Round Earth Theory. 99.989% was the maximum value at the equator. A Full Moon may be possible at very high latitudes on rare occasions when the moon is lowest near the earth's umbra, however.

The US NAVY Round Earth calculator has Moon Illumination values down to the second decmil place:

Ie.

0.97% illiminated
0.98% illuminated
1.00% illuminated

Link: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

Yes. they show it out to 2 decimal places, but they did NOT show it in %. You added that. The moon is CLEARLY not 1.00% illuminated. Right?  Just a typo there on your part. Fix that decimal point and get back to us. No shame. We all make mistrakes. Just fix it and I think you'll see my point.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2018, 10:42:56 PM
You are right. 0.99 is the same as 99%.

The US Navy is inaccurate. Not only do they state that a 100% full moon happens every month on their website, so do their calculators, and for everywhere on earth. You may assert that they are rounding up, but it is still a technical inaccuracy for an astronomical authority.

Inkitham appears to be more technically correct than the US Navy.

I don't mind expanding on the Wiki with some of this information we have discussed, and your recommendations. We clearly see that astronomical authorities are incorrect about the Round Earth Theory. The Full Moon doesn't happen every month, and everywhere on earth, in RET, as the Navy's website and its Round Earth model implies.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 30, 2018, 10:52:29 PM
The US Navy is inaccurate. Not only do they state that a 100% full moon happens every month on their website, so do their calculators. You may be assert that they are rounding up, but it is still a technical inaccuracy for an astronomical authority.

Inkitham appears to be more technically correct than the US Navy.
I agree. I don't know who Inkitham is, but the US is technically in error. Not a critical error, but an error nonetheless.
 

I don't mind expanding on the Wiki with some of this information we have discussed, and your recommendations. We clearly see that our astronomical authorities are incorrect about the Round Earth Theory. The Full moon doesn't happen every month, and everywhere on earth, in RET, as the Navy's website and Round Earth model implies.

Good job finding that speck in the RE astronomy eye, Tom.

Looking forward to how the log in the FET's eye about how a "full" moon in FET can even reach a 90% illuminated phase is addressed. I'll forgive RE astronomers for their <0.1% laxity on moon fullness.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2018, 11:03:11 PM
Good job finding that speck in the RE astronomy eye, Tom.

I didn't create that diagram or make this thread or come up with this argument. edby created this thread. He insisted on arguing about it and this is where it has brought us. The article was right, and it was dozens of Round Earth astronomy sources who were wrong.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 30, 2018, 11:06:08 PM
0.99 is the same as 99%. It is not 100%

The US Navy is inaccurate. Not only do they state that a 100% full moon happens every month, so do their calculators. You may be claiming that they are rounding up, but it is still a technical inaccuracy for an astronomical authority.

Inkitham appears to be more technically correct than the US Navy.
Tom, I'm not accusing you of anything, but your posts might sound to some people like you're trying to be dishonest. I know you aren't, so I suggest a tiny tweak.
0.99 is 99%... yes to the nearest full %, that's 99. 1.00 is 100% to the nearest 1%. You stated quite clearly, and it seemed to be your entire point that this was 2 digits of accuracy. More correctly it's accuracy to within 1% (1/100th). So if all of us here on the board have agreed that the prediction is 0.998 (To the nearest 1/1000th) on a given night, then that will come out in the navy's chart as 1.00. No dishonesty anywhere there.

There is nothing inaccurate about saying 100% ESPECIALLY when backed with the number as presented 1.00. That's what zeros past the decimal mean. That means those are significant figures. They are there to show the level of precision.

Inkitham is technically just fine. It is the implication that the US Navy is wrong that I disagree with. They show accuracy to 1% and no more. If you interpreted that to mean accuracy far more precise than that, that isn't their fault. Your interpretation is incorrect. They are pretty clear. They show 1.00 and that is accurate only to 1%.

I'm happy to concede that they completely glossed over the details of those tenths of a percent. Very few public-facing websites bother to go into it. I'm happy to concede that it is very easy to imagine that when they say 100% that they actually mean perfectly, exactly 100% out to as many digits as you could imagine. But when you look closer, you see they actually say 1.00. They say EXACTLY how many digits it's good to, and they are not inaccurate about it according to any of the calculations we've put together.

So I suggest you tweak your statements that the Navy's page is inaccurate to better explain your point. I think your point is that they say 100% which is easily misinterpreted to mean perfectly, exactly 100% out to as many digits as you could imagine when clearly that is not the case.

And Bobby, please read this too. There isn't anything inaccurate about it. 100% full moons DO happen every month. 100.0% full moons do NOT happen every month. As far as I've seen so far, nobody has said that they do. Certainly not the Navy's site.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 30, 2018, 11:09:18 PM
Good job finding that speck in the RE astronomy eye, Tom.

I didn't create this thread. edby created this thread. He insisted on arguing about it and this is where it has brought us. The article was right, and it was edby who was wrong.

I didn't create that diagram. I have plenty of other more damning things against the Round Earth model I can bring up.
Good point. I side with you on this one and not edby.

I don't agree with everything you said to argue your point, of course; but ultimately I agree with your quibble: a 100% illuminated moon is not possible in the conventional dynamics and configuration of spherical sun, earth and moon. 100% full is "good enough for government work," as they say; but it's not truly 100%.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 30, 2018, 11:11:45 PM
Good job finding that speck in the RE astronomy eye, Tom.

I didn't create this thread. edby created this thread. He insisted on arguing about it and this is where it has brought us. The article was right, and it was edby who was wrong.

I didn't create that diagram. I have plenty of other more damning things against the Round Earth model I can bring up.
Good point. I side with you on this one and not edby.

I don't agree with everything you said to argue your point, of course; but ultimately I agree with your quibble: a 100% illuminated moon is not possible in the conventional dynamics and configuration of spherical sun, earth and moon. 100% full is "good enough for government work," as they say; but it's not truly 100%.
Once again, 100% is not wrong. 100.0% would be wrong, and I think we all agree on that, but if you're only going to quote out to the nearest 1%, what are you going to say when the answer is 0.998? How is that not 100%?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 01, 2018, 01:52:57 AM
I've thought about it, and I think I'm just being too vague. Let me make it more clear...

The point is that RET predicts a moon full enough that it will look perfectly lit with the naked eye.

When the Flat Earth Society puts on their official wiki an article headlined, "The Full Moon is Impossible in Round Earth Theory," that seems to very strongly imply that the full moon as observed each lunar month is impossible according to RET. Such an implication would be inaccurate.

We have gone through the math and shown that RET predicts full moons to be no less than 99.7% illuminated, but sometimes more like 99.989%.

Your entire argument is that various websites quote 100%. While those articles are still technically correct because 99.7% = 100% when showing only 1% of precision, your point is that it's misleading because the real number won't be higher than 99.989%. When it comes to the implication made by the article titled, "The Full Moon is Impossible in Round Earth Theory," that is not the point. The point is that RET predicts a moon full enough that it will look perfectly lit with the naked eye.

I'm going to say that again...

The point is that RET predicts a moon full enough that it will look perfectly lit with the naked eye.

I object to the implication that RET predicts anything less than that. Any such implication would be false, and we've gone through all the numbers together on this, so I know that you realize such an implication is false.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: rabinoz on July 01, 2018, 02:03:34 AM
You are right. 0.99 is the same as 99%.

The US Navy is inaccurate. Not only do they state that a 100% full moon happens every month on their website, so do their calculators, and for everywhere on earth. You may assert that they are rounding up, but it is still a technical inaccuracy for an astronomical authority.
Sure 0.99 is the same as 99% but is 99.7% closer to 99% or to 100%. The US Navy chose to specify the illumination as to two decimal place. What is inaccurate about that?
For example, around the next full moon on July 28 at Monterey they show:
July 27  0.99
July 28  1.00
July 27  0.99
That is not an inaccurate statement but had they stated "that a 1.000 illuminated moon happens every month" it would have been a different matter.

The correct answer to the topic question "Full moon impossible?" is, of course, "Yes" but that does not imply any limit on precision.

Now, instead of going on and on about the perceived "mote" of the "technical inaccuracy for an astronomical authority" how about
giving some consideration to "the beam that is in your own eye" in the form of the flat earth's model being total unable to explain many aspects of lunar phases.

You complained earlier that this was off-topic, so on your suggestion Bobby Shafto opened a new thread Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10056.0).

So far you seem to have studiously avoided it, which you have every right to do.

All flat-earthers ignoring such questions certainly implies that there is no satisfactory flat-earth explanation for the lunar phases we see.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 01, 2018, 02:16:51 AM
That is not an inaccurate statement but had they stated "that a 1.000 illuminated moon happens every month" it would have been a different matter.

They do say that it goes to 100% every month:

Bobby, look at the video ICanScienceThat made for us. Even with that scenario, a 100% full moon is still not possible:

Even if that is the case, so what?


I can't see that it takes us anywhere further except to say that astronomy texts are wrong where they say or imply that the full moon goes to 100% every month in the Round Earth model.

Are you saying that ALL astronomy texts are wrong? Have you read any advanced ones, or are you just quoting those entry-level ones that you mentioned above?

Those university courses are teaching astronomers. Can you find the courses that are teaching astronomers correct things?

The US Navy is the US authority on Sun and Moon astronomy. And even they say that the moon goes to 100% fullness every month:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/moon_phases.php

Quote
The percent of the Moon's surface illuminated is a more refined, quantitative description of the Moon's appearance than is the phase. Considering the Moon as a circular disk, the ratio of the area illuminated by direct sunlight to its total area is the fraction of the Moon's surface illuminated; multiplied by 100, it is the percent illuminated. At New Moon the percent illuminated is 0; at First and Last Quarters it is 50%; and at Full Moon it is 100%. During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%.

Quote
Although Full Moon occurs each month at a specific date and time, the Moon's disk may appear to be full for several nights in a row if it is clear.


Quote
Following waning crescent is New Moon, beginning a repetition of the complete phase cycle of 29.5 days average duration. The time in days counted from the time of New Moon is called the Moon's "age". Each complete cycle of phases is called a "lunation".

Because the cycle of the phases is shorter than most calendar months, the phase of the Moon at the very beginning of the month usually repeats at the very end of the month. When there are two Full Moons in a month (which occurs, on average, every 2.7 years), the second one is called a "Blue Moon". [/b]
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 01, 2018, 03:03:46 AM
Tom, I must conclude at this point that you are being deliberately obtuse. Over and over again, it has been explained that within a tolerance of 1%, 100% and 99.7% are the same thing. You avoid responding to this and just keep repeating, "but they said 100%." There is no way you misunderstood this all this time. It is very clear.

It is completely clear that you know full-well that RET predicts a moon full enough that you'd never be able to tell it wasn't complete without a strong telescope. You know the ramifications of that statement. It means RET matches observations just fine. Yet you continue to repeat, "but they said 100%" as if that meant anything important.

I'll grant you this, it's an excellent debate strategy. People will see the long explanations and the details and all they will come away with is, "but they said 100%". I don't know about you, but that's very sad to me. A whole lot of people will come away from this completely missing the point because you have successfully distracted them from it. And to think, you must have done it on purpose. There's just no way you still cannot understand that 100% could mean anywhere from 99.5% - 100.5%. You must be doing this on purpose at this point.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 01, 2018, 04:02:57 AM
I don' think that I'm distracting anything. The wiki article and diagram was pretty clear that the author was talking about technicalities. This is why he said in the diagram that the full moon was only possible at a high latitude location when the moon was in a certain position near the umbra/horizon, for a short period of time, and that everwhere else it is impossible.

If you want to round up and say that a full moon happens every month, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.

If the Round Earth authorities want to round up in their authoratative materials that's fine too. They should at least put a disclaimer on the website and calculators that they are fudging things, however.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 01, 2018, 05:42:02 AM
I don' think that I'm distracting anything. The wiki article and diagram was pretty clear that the author was talking about technicalities. This is why he said in the diagram that the full moon was only possible at a high latitude location when the moon was in a certain position near the umbra/horizon, for a short period of time, and that everwhere else it is impossible.

If you want to round up and say that a full moon happens every month, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.
Yes I do want to round off. I'd appreciate it if you added a disclaimer to the wiki to make it clear.

If the Round Earth authorities want to round up in their authoratative materials that's fine too. They should at least put a disclaimer on the website and calculators that they are fudging things, however.
I'd be happy to write them a letter. They clearly aren't fudging anything, but a disclaimer would be great. Would you like to consult on the wording of that letter? Would you like to provide a list of places (websites and such) that you have found that could use such a disclaimer?
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: Tumeni on July 01, 2018, 08:56:32 AM
The US Navy is the US authority on Sun and Moon astronomy. And even they say that the moon goes to 100% fullness every month:
Quote
The percent of the Moon's surface illuminated is a more refined, quantitative description of the Moon's appearance than is the phase. Considering the Moon as a circular disk, the ratio of the area illuminated by direct sunlight to its total area is the fraction of the Moon's surface illuminated; multiplied by 100, it is the percent illuminated. At New Moon the percent illuminated is 0; at First and Last Quarters it is 50%; and at Full Moon it is 100%. During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%.

So what? It says it's 100% illuminated. That's true. Doesn't say all that illumination is visible to every observer on Earth
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: rabinoz on July 01, 2018, 12:12:10 PM
That is not an inaccurate statement but had they stated "that a 1.000 illuminated moon happens every month" it would have been a different matter.

They do say that it goes to 100% every month:

They say, "that it goes to 1.00 every month" but they do not say, "that it goes to 100.0% every month" or "that it goes to 1.000 every month" do they?

And while it might not reach 100.0% every month, the moon's fraction illuminated, rounded to an integer percent, does reach 100% every month.

One thing to realise is the "Full Moon" technically occurs at one particular time and the moon is not visible at that particular time over half the earth.

Now, if my sums are correct, maybe someone can check them (remembering that the angle errors due to the orbital inclination are normal to those due to the moon moving around its orbit):
The illumination at the exact time of full moon varies depending on one's location on earth from 0.9972 to 0.9986 or 99.72% to 99.86%.

But viewers in the wrong part of the Globe to see the full moon at the correct time might be up to 6 hours out, in which time the moon will have moved, relative to the direction of the sun by up to 3.3°.
For this misalignment, the illumination of the "full moon" varies depending on one's location on earth from 0.9964 to 0.9964 or 99.64% to 99.64%, all of which round to 1.00 or 100%.


Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 03, 2018, 08:10:19 AM
So...it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Wiki page claim that

"100% totality should be impossible"

is actually correct, but the reality is it's so close that it's impossible to discern the difference so websites claiming it's 100% are just simplifying. It's hardly the smoking gun which shows RE to be nonsense.

I can't really see the point of that Wiki page. It's like finding a website which claims there are 365 days in a year and going "ah-ha! they're up to something!"
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: edby on July 03, 2018, 08:35:06 AM
So...it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Wiki page claim that

"100% totality should be impossible"

is actually correct ...

I still disagree that 100% is impossible. It will be possible in the situation where line from the 'bottom' of the sun passes in a tangent to the 'top' of the earth, then hits the 'bottom' of the moon. This is geometrically possible, but will only happen for an instant.

'Top' and 'bottom' here means perpendicular to the plane of the solar ecliptic.

Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 03, 2018, 08:40:08 AM
So...it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Wiki page claim that

"100% totality should be impossible"

is actually correct ...

I still disagree that 100% is 'impossible'. It will be possible in the situation where line from the 'bottom' of the sun passes in a tangent to the 'top' of the earth, then hits the 'bottom' of the moon. This is geometrically possible, but will only happen for an instant.

'Top' and 'bottom' here means perpendicular to the plane of the solar ecliptic.

Well, whatever. The general point is that most full moons are, in reality, not 100% full. But they're close enough that you can't discern the difference.
I don't know what that Wiki page is trying to demonstrate. If the point of it is to demonstrate a glaring flaw in RE then it doesn't, so what's the point of it?

While we're here, the FE explanation of moon phases:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

would have the exact same problem. And you'd have the problem of what forces are acting on the sun and moon to make them wobble up and down although the FE model has no explanation of what makes the sun travel in the path they claim.
Title: Re: Full moon impossible?
Post by: timothyleary on July 04, 2018, 10:49:32 AM
According to that same link:
"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."

So, with this in mind, how does it get to be night in the North Pole? They have months of it on end.

If I am understanding this right, then the north pole, being the apparent centre, will always be in daylight