The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 05:57:20 PM

Title: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 05:57:20 PM
Open topic (of course) but directed toward Tom Bishop (who asked that this be split off to a separate topic).

In answering explanations for how a full moon is possible in the globe earth model, you (Tom) said:

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Fair enough. Can we discard these claims then that serve as explanatory claims for a full moon on a flat earth?

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.

Can you model (or just diagram) that and show me evidence of how that can work?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 05:58:03 PM
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 on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on June 29, 2018, 06:19:17 PM
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.

Bobby,

I've done research on this.





This is a circular, ice wall, no dome flat earth model. In this model the full moon is determined based on how close you are to the middle of the circle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKvw1LHIbc
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 29, 2018, 06:23:50 PM
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.

Bobby,

I've done research on this.





This is a circular, ice wall, no dome flat earth model. In this model the full moon is determined based on how close you are to the middle of the circle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKvw1LHIbc
In that video, aren't they showing a full moon in the north at the same time as a new moon in the south? Is this the pro-FE explanation?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: MCToon on June 29, 2018, 06:50:39 PM
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.

Bobby,

I've done research on this.

This is a circular, ice wall, no dome flat earth model. In this model the full moon is determined based on how close you are to the middle of the circle.


This video claims that northern viewers see a full moon when southern viewers see a new moon.

The image Bobby provided illustrates the spotlight effect, a central claim to the day-night cycle for flat earth.  The moon would reside outside the spotlight for most of the 28 day lunar cycle.  How would the moon be illuminated by the spotlight sun?

Are you really going to present this as an explanation?

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 29, 2018, 07:27:47 PM
No offense, but I'd like to avoid a "but Tom said" discussion with others.  This is a public board and topic, of course, but I posted this in response to Tom, who asked that I move it out of the other topic and into a new one.

So, while I  appreciate you globe-ists wanting to chime in, this is mainly for Tom, OR whoever endorses/composed the current wiki pages on the moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on June 29, 2018, 11:14:37 PM
In that video, aren't they showing a full moon in the north at the same time as a new moon in the south?

yes
Is this the pro-FE explanation?

It is for this particular model.

One thing you have to understand is that there are dozens of earth models. This is the explanation for one specific flat earth model.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on June 29, 2018, 11:28:44 PM
No offense, but I'd like to avoid a "but Tom said" discussion with others.  This is a public board and topic, of course, but I posted this in response to Tom, who asked that I move it out of the other topic and into a new one.

So, while I  appreciate you globe-ists wanting to chime in, this is mainly for Tom, OR whoever endorses/composed the current wiki pages on the moon.

I believe you have answered this question yourself

How about this?

Combination of spotlight effect and upward curving of sunlight:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2ppnbix.jpg)

the light from the sun is curving upwards to shine on the moon allowing a spotlight sun and an illuminated moon
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 30, 2018, 12:19:05 AM
I believe you have answered this question yourself...the light from the sun is curving upwards to shine on the moon allowing a spotlight sun and an illuminated moon
No. I don't want my answer. Nor an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink devil's advocate answer. I'm asking for an integregated, internally consistent answer given the unambiguous declarations in the wiki, to which Tom avers.

If you're going to forward EAT in the model, you can't promote perspective. If you claim perspective, you can't rely on EAT.

If you want to play the part of FE, take it seriously and don't just play a caricature. If that's how Tom or some other FE advocate wants to defend the FE model, let him do it.

If a RE full moon is impossible because a giant distant sun-earth-moon geometry can't perfectly align without the earth eclipsing the sun, then how can a near small moon appear fully illuminated by an equally small, near sun, both of which are on a perpendicular plane above earth?

I can't work it out, even if the spotlight sun is abandoned. The giant Rubik's cube perspective rationale for why the "bottom" of the full moon is visible from all night portions of flat earth didn't make sense to me, but if committed to that, you can't rely on EAT to solve the geometry.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 30, 2018, 07:15:16 AM
Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: StevieCRT on June 30, 2018, 09:37:20 AM
Can someone explain to me how shadows are cast from the moon onto the Earth and vice versa?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on June 30, 2018, 11:44:50 AM
Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you.

It is, because Tom suggested himself that if another thread were started, that he would participate;

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.

No?

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 30, 2018, 01:05:42 PM
That's not how it reads to me, but of course that's entirely subjective. Even then, just complaining that people are responding to your thread is unlikely to help.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 30, 2018, 08:37:17 PM
Can someone explain to me how shadows are cast from the moon onto the Earth and vice versa?
Yes. Happy to. Although, I can explain it for RE only.

Here's the Moon's shadow on the Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNcfKUJwnjM
Here's the Earth's shadow on the Moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuhNZejHeBg

Those are pretty non-technical. If you have a more specific question, I'd be happy to help you find a more detailed explanation.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 01, 2018, 02:40:45 AM
Here is the perspective theory response:

Open topic (of course) but directed toward Tom Bishop (who asked that this be split off to a separate topic).

In answering explanations for how a full moon is possible in the globe earth model, you (Tom) said:

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof. Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their perspective model and their concept of perspective lines that receded infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance?

Can you show that the perspective lines are infinite, that they don't meet, or anything else about that model?

Since the assumptions and axioms in your disproof are without evidence, it can be discarded without evidence.

I see that you are making a number of assumptions in your post. You are assuming that the sun is a literal spotlight, that perspecitve is as the Ancient Greeks describe, that the rules of Euclid have been proven to be true, that the sun and moon are increasing and decreasing their altitudes in vertical lines, among other things. You are mixing in your assumptions about the Flat Earth model with your school-taught hypothesis of a perfect universe.

A full perspective theory is still in its infancy, but right now I will point you to the "Why do we se the same face of the moon" thread we had recently (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10013.0).

In the Flat Earth model, if the moon is above the altitude of the sun, the sun will see its underside. If the moon is below the altitude of the sun, the sun will see the top of the moon. Your idea of how the relation works in Ancient Greek Perspective Theory would need to be first demonstrated true, before we can say that perspective operates or scales in that manner.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 01, 2018, 03:15:15 AM
There exist non-Euclidean geometries that do not use Euclid's postulates.

Consider Projective Geometry. It is a form of geometry that was created empirically, rather than based on a hypothetical  concept of a perfect universe. The perspective lines are finite, and meet in the distance. It is used in computer graphics and other areas.

There are a large number of other finite geometries as well, a number of which reject Elucid's parallel line postulate entirely.

To say for certain what should or should not happen in the distance would require thorough study of the world and how perspective behaves at various distances. Since the Ancient Greeks could not provide evidence for their model, that model can be discarded.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 01, 2018, 07:38:21 AM

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof.
I am? I don't even know what the "Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model" is. Is it what underlies the concept that "in order to see a full moon with 100% totality, you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on?"

I can't reproduce your apparently non-Greek version of "perspective" in the real world. If you could just explain, or better yet demonstrate with a practical model, or even just  diagram, how the sun illuminates the moon in a flat earth configuration such that anyone with a view to the moon will see it "full." You're just throwing the word "perspective" out like it's a magic cure-all answer. Where's the evidence that perspective answers the challenge?  I saw where you expressed disdain for RE propensity to rely on "refraction" to explain any observation that challenges earth's rotundity. You're doing the same thing, but with "perspective."

Show me an alignment of sun and moon over a flat earth that will create a full moon illumination for people on the night side of earth. I don't know about the Greeks, but I can't do it. Seems impossible to me. Even more impossible than a full moon in RE.  I say it can't be done. Prove that it can. Show me evidence that a 100% full moon on flat earth can work.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 01, 2018, 07:45:05 AM
You are assuming that the sun is a literal spotlight...
I do the best I can with the description FE has given me. If the spotlight nature of the sun isn't literal, what is it? A metaphor?

Of course I assume the sun is a literal spotlight. How could I not?

Heck, we can ditch the spotlight "assumption" entirely. You still can't solve the full moon problem even if the sun beams omnidirectionally unless you invoke more un-evidenced, ad hoc rationalizations.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 01, 2018, 07:54:16 AM
A full perspective theory is still in its infancy, but right now I will point you to the "Why do we se the same face of the moon" thread we had recently (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10013.0).

In the Flat Earth model, if the moon is above the altitude of the sun, the sun will see its underside. If the moon is below the altitude of the sun, the sun will see the top of the moon. Your idea of how the relation works in Ancient Greek Perspective Theory would need to be first demonstrated true, before we can say that perspective operates or scales in that manner.
Again with the Ancient Greek stuff. I'm trying to be zetetic here. I'm not assuming any Greek theory. Have you tried to model your Rubik's cube illustration. I have. It doesn't work. You're the self-claimed empiricist. Don't just say it works. Show it.

For the moon to be full, it can't be out of alignment from the sun. Just like you argued for RE. The geometry based on the claimed form and magnitude "assumptions" of FE wiki make it impossible. If that's not true -- if it's possible -- show how. That's the point of this topic.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: lookatmooninUKthenAUS on July 01, 2018, 04:26:55 PM
There is absolutely no need to be banging on about different types of geometry here.

It should be simple to draw a basic line drawing that shows where the suns rays go in order to create full and partial (phases of the) moon.

Indeed the phases of the moon are the best evidence we have that our moon is a globe. The shadows generated could only be made by a spherical object casting its shadow as the sun orbits behind it emitting light radially in all directions. A circular disk shaped Earth would not produce the same regular arrangement of shapes throughout the month.

As for the full moon problem.....QUITE! Lets just see a simple line drawing by a FE supporter explaining it. IT CANT BE DONE!
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 01, 2018, 05:14:57 PM
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lGePi.png)

Click to enlarge.

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

The Ancient Greek model taught in schools is a H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-S-I-S.

The concept of finite perspective lines also has consequences related to the rotation of receding overhead objects.

An object suspended one foot above your head, that recedes into the distance, will rotate to perspective quickly. An object suspended 10 feet above your head that recedes into the distance will rotate to perspective a little slower, and slower still as the object increases its height.

The perspective model of the Ancient Greeks predicts that the perspective lines recede infinitely without connecting, and therefore the object will never reach a point where it stops turning.

If the Ancient Greeks are wrong, and a finite geometry model is correct, then the usual point of infinity is actually at a finite distance and an object will stop turning at a finite distance away.

The particular makeup of finite perspective geometry might subject to a number of properties; perhaps that there is a difference between overhead and horizontal positions/motions -- but that is speculation until additional empirical data can be generated on this subject.

At the moment, much of the true nature of perspective seems to still be a question mark -- hence the multiple non-euclidean geometries that are in competition to each other, none necessarily demonstrated to be wrong to the world, as there is no good evidence for what happens at real world limits.

Rowbotham did demonstrate in his chapter Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before The Mast Head (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) that perspective seems to operate on multiple motions on the horizontal, in contradiction to how traditional perspective theory is taught, showing that the postulates of Euclid are not necessarily true and, if the experiments are to be believed, demonstratively false.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: lookatmooninUKthenAUS on July 01, 2018, 07:37:03 PM
Quote
An object suspended one foot above your head, that recedes into the distance, will rotate to perspective quickly.....

No it won't......'rotate'. You simply see the underside and as the angle of observation allows photons of light to reflect off the front surface you see that. You would not see, for instance, the letter T rotate so that the horizontal of the T was at the bottom. Not in any direction.

This perspective stuff is raised anytime a simple question that cannot be answered with FE theory is asked. It is smoke and mirrors. No data....no discussion to be had. Come back with data and a worked out theory.

Meanwhile.......Please answer Bobby's question. Lets keep this thread on track:

Quote
For the moon to be full, it can't be out of alignment from the sun. Just like you argued for RE. The geometry based on the claimed form and magnitude "assumptions" of FE wiki make it impossible. If that's not true -- if it's possible -- show how. That's the point of this topic.


......My version: How can a spotlight sun or a radial sun create a full moon when it is night at a given observing point on Earth?

for the RE theory both the rotation of the moon and the phases of the moon are easily and beautifully explained by the same phenomena....that the EARTH IS ROUND!
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: lookatmooninUKthenAUS on July 01, 2018, 08:07:11 PM
Watch this. Its a lovely, clear demonstration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz01pTvuMa0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz01pTvuMa0)

Notice how the moon orbits 'round' the Earth (her head) and the sun remains static. She (and we) can only see the moons phases if it goes around us.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: edby on July 01, 2018, 08:17:47 PM
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lGePi.png)

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

Which lines are you referring to? The lines on the picture - which do converge - or the parallel lines they represent - which don't?

Generally, you need to be clear on the distinction between pictures, and the things they are pictures of.

The thing above is a picture.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 01, 2018, 08:38:22 PM
Finite geometry is easily illustrated: 

Lot of words followed that opening phrase, but none answered the challenge. I see no diagram or practical demo of sun and moon over a flat earth showing me how your response is applicable. How can a full moon be seen on a flat earth? If it's in a position for its bottom to be 100% illuminated, it can't be seen as full from anywhere on earth.

You sure seem to understand why that is in RE sun/earth/moon alignment. Why doesn't alignment matter over a flat earth?

I don't get it. All your ad hoc perspective handwaving to allow that a flat full moon is possible could apply to a RE moon just barely out of earth's shadow. The geometry is even less problematic for RE than it is for FE, and that's even ignoring the "spotlight" said sun, which apparently isn't meant to be a literal spotlight.

What I'm challenging you to do, Tom, is be consistent. If "zetetic" is what it is, be zetetic in both RE and FE.

I'm going to do what you won't and create a practical demonstration of your Rubik's cube analogy. I predict it will not show what you claim without evidence.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Rama Set on July 01, 2018, 10:37:25 PM
Don’t take the bait on Tom’s complaint about Euclidean geometry. Nothing in Euclid mentions perspective lines meeeting at a point in infinity. It’s something Tom made up.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 02, 2018, 05:55:18 AM
So Tom is suggesting that perhaps light does NOT travel in straight lines. This is a difficult one TBH.
Since this is FES, we must set aside any scientific results gathered by others and anything that includes experiments we cannot reproduce ourselves. That makes this one somewhat difficult.
We can easily verify that light travels in straight lines over short distances. In fact, we can easily verify this finding out to distances as far as we can reasonably verify - say out to hundreds of meters. However, once we get out to distances measured in km, the curvature of the Earth is going to confound us. While most of us will say that the visual sinking of a distant ship proves the Earth is curved, Tom is going to suggest that light itself bends at those distances. It's pretty hard to come up with a backyard experiment for this one, but I believe I've come up with some evidence. Crepuscular rays:
(https://i.imgur.com/pFDtpHS.jpg)
(Please disregard the annotations, but I couldn't resist choosing an image from FES where the crepuscular rays are shown to be straight lines.)
Here's a cool video:
https://youtu.be/qo2a9NKCyaM?t=210
Perhaps these rays aren't travelling far enough to cover what is happening out in space, but these should answer the question of ships vanishing bottom-first nicely.
Crepuscular rays show that light travels in straight lines at least to the distances of distant clouds.

So that leaves what could happen out in space... We aren't going to get crepuscular rays out that far. Normally, I would sight eclipses and other simple astronomy, but this is FES where none of those are valid. I think this leaves us with an obvious approach to take. Let us hypothesize that light DOES bend as it travels from the Sun to us. Further, let us speculate that this bending of the light is why the Sun appears to be where it is in the sky. (The subject of eclipses is a bit more complex, so let's start simple.) We don't really need the mechanism for why the light bends just yet... we'll search for that after we've established how much bending we have and in what direction. Let's pick a moment in time - say 12 noon GMT on the equinox. Look up the apparent location of the sun from many points all over the world and plot those onto your favorite FE map. Next to each of those lines, plot the straight-line direction towards the FE Sun. The angle created represents the amount of bending the light has done before getting to the ground. I bet if we see this pattern of bending, it will shed some light onto what the cause of that bend might be.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on July 02, 2018, 06:13:27 AM
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lGePi.png)

Click to enlarge.

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

You don't? 
I see a 2-D representation (a diagram) of 3 sets of parallel lines appearing to get closer as they recede into the distance
till they finally apear to meet at infinity in the 3 points, Z, O and N.

But it is only a representation.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 02, 2018, 08:05:54 PM
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

This reply is about finite geometry. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof

This reply is about perspective.  It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.

He is complaining because he asks a question about flat earth models and gets 30 answers from people who either believe the earth is round or are undecided and the response from people who believe the earth is flat does nothing to help him understand a full moon.



Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,


I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon.  Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?


Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon


(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)



Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards
(https://i.imgur.com/ynDTEDo.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on July 03, 2018, 12:28:13 AM

Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,

I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon.  Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?

Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)
I am by no means a flat-earther but one big objection to that geometry is that no-one in the night area of the earth can see a full moon.
Hence it seems that again a "Full Moon is Impossible on Flat Earth". Not only that, but the angular size of the moon does not change a great deal.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 05, 2018, 07:36:10 AM
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lGePi.png)

Click to enlarge.

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

In your provided image, I hope you will agree that the purple horizontal lines are the same distance apart if we viewed them in a top down view or in reality?
In perspective view, as in your image, we see the distance between the lines become shorter and shorter, where you now have 10 horizontal lines further away in the same space as 1 line close to you.
The thing you probably do not realize and can't comprehend, is that if you continue this shortening of distance between the lines, in accordance with perspective, you would be able to continue to draw an infinite amount of lines and never reach the presented horizon line.
We have simple trigonometry math which can be used for this (since perspective is based upon straight lines and angles), which can calculate the exact position of every line. It really is as simple as that, and shows that the lines recede to infinity (even though it is hard to grasp).

I will note however that the lines will be extremely close to the horizon line not that far away from an observer. 100 meters away and it would almost look to be at the horizon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 01:22:54 AM


Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon


(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)

Where on the surface of earth would a full moon be visible?

Anyone on the night side (assuming the moon could even be seen through the sun's emanation) would not see a full moon because of the off axis alignment.

The alignment conundrum improves for viewers on the day side, but not resolved, and is further complicated it being day.

The only alignment that would provide a fully illuminated moon would be directly under the sun, but then, of course, the sun would be eclipsing the moon.

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 01:29:25 AM

Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards
(https://i.imgur.com/ynDTEDo.jpg)

Firstly, that was my adapted illustration of how "bendy light" might work, but I acknowledge that it is goofed in that the light pattern wouldn't terminate like that.

Nevertheless, ignoring that, such light behavior would illuminate the "underside" of the moon, but then there's still the issue that the rays from the sun are oblique and not illuminate the entire underside of the moon. There would still be a terminator visible on the side furthest from the sun that would be visible from earth. The "bendy" light would need to be vertical when it's being reflected by the moon. Without knowing what the degree of curve of the light is, it can't explain it. If it could be curved enough to be vertical by the time it's reached distance to the moon at the moon's altitude, then that creates significant geometry problems for other phenomena that Electro-Magnetic Accelerator Theory (EAT) is proposed to resolve.

So I assert that's an inadequate solution as well.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 04:09:32 PM
Sun and moon locations over a candidate Bi-Polar flat earth (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10067.msg157720#msg157720) at 1900 UTC on 27 July 2018, near start of lunar eclipse. How can the moon appear full outside of the eclipse region in this configuration? Even if the moon is "higher" than the sun, it's not aligned to produce a full moon to those on the night side, below the moon looking up at it.

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/20zs789.jpg)

(Red highlighted longitude are where those locations are that will see this at that time and date (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9970.msg158064#msg158064).)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 06, 2018, 05:41:15 PM
I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.

FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.

I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on July 06, 2018, 06:37:37 PM
I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.

FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.

I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
The problem with a self-lit moon has always been visible shadows cast by ranges of mountains upon the moon. How does your self illumination hypothesis account for those? I'd also love to hear about lunar eclipses if you care to share. Both are glaring issues that a self-illumination hypothesis needs to cover.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 06, 2018, 07:09:24 PM
I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.

FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.

I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
The problem with a self-lit moon has always been visible shadows cast by ranges of mountains upon the moon. How does your self illumination hypothesis account for those? I'd also love to hear about lunar eclipses if you care to share. Both are glaring issues that a self-illumination hypothesis needs to cover.
Shadows are just that; shadows cast by imperfections, scraps of dull stone on the illuminated surface. They prevent some of the light reaching us, therefore we see greyer areas, increasingly obvious when viewed from the side and there's less light drowning them out.
Lunar eclipses are more a result of the Earth than the moon, the basic idea is that they occur at the time the moon shines from the further side of the Sun and its light has to travel through more air to reach us, so it undergoes more Rayleigh scattering. That's far from a rigorous description though.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 07:13:18 PM
Self-luminous would answer the full moon challenge, but to account for the phases of the moon cycle (and eclipses if a "Shadow Object" isn't being replaced by an "Eclipsing Object"), the luminescence would have to be variable. Even a self-luminescent moon would have to be explained with keeping the same side facing toward the earth, so you can't use rotation to explain the changes in appearance. There'd need to be a mechanism to cause the "face" of the moon itself to go dark and light up in a cyclic pattern.

I have a self-luminous moon, actually. Like this:

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/1t4xtz.jpg)

I can't simulate phases, but I wonder if there's a way to make a practical model or use it to demonstrate whether or not a self-luminous mood matches what we observe?

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 06, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
Self-luminous would answer the full moon challenge, but to account for the phases of the moon cycle (and eclipses if a "Shadow Object" isn't being replaced by an "Eclipsing Object"), the luminescence would have to be variable. Even a self-luminescent moon would have to be explained with keeping the same side facing toward the earth, so you can't use rotation to explain the changes in appearance. There'd need to be a mechanism to cause the "face" of the moon itself to go dark and light up in a cyclic pattern.
No shadow object, lunar eclipses explained (vaguely, it draws on a lot of other topics at length that I don't feel like regurgitating, linked in sig) above.
I explicitly said the same face is not facing the Earth, it rotates. This is a departure from RET. I am not going to try to shoehorn in elements of RET. The idea of one face only facing the Earth is a relic of RET and its reflective moon, but for a non-reflective moon we observe different faces, we have to; look at how the features change. REers call that light being cast at different angles on mountains and craters, I call it a different perspective on one face and the rocks that cover it.

Quote
I can't simulate phases, but I wonder if there's a way to make a practical model or use it to demonstrate whether or not a self-luminous mood matches what we observe?
Wrap foil or something around it, block light from going out the back, have light only come out in a circle around the front. The foil should always be in contact with the surface of the faux-moon. The amount with which it curves is going to be the major sticking point, and the one thing that might prevent it working completely, but if you experiment a bit, gauge how much the foil would cover of the lit face, you should get a decent approximation. You can even simulate phases by turning it around; it just won't look completely accurate because you don't have 3-d objects to block light and cast shadows.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 07:37:53 PM
I explicitly said the same face is not facing the Earth, it rotates. This is a departure from RET.
It's because you explicitly said that that I mentioned it; because it's not what we observe. The face (or underside if you prefer) is always the same and doesn't revolve or rotate away from observation points on earth. If that's going to be different in FET, then where's the observation to support it? It's one of the things we must agree on since we're seeing the same thing, whether we think we're on a flat earth or a curved one.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 06, 2018, 07:48:59 PM
I explicitly said the same face is not facing the Earth, it rotates. This is a departure from RET.
It's because you explicitly said that that I mentioned it; because it's not what we observe. The face (or underside if you prefer) is always the same and doesn't revolve or rotate away from observation points on earth. If that's going to be different in FET, then where's the observation to support it? It's one of the things we must agree on since we're seeing the same thing, whether we think we're on a flat earth or a curved one.
It does not look the same. Look at photos, look at the moon itself, not the RE model.

(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750x500/full-moon.png?1) (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2f37b5ceec36f02bb21f2f182ae8ac19)

The coarseness at the edge of the underside is visible for the crescent, but we see no such features on the full moon, for starters. Between the two, the only part that I think could even feasibly be called the same would be the two grey patches near the top of the crescent, though even they appear different in terms of proportion and shading, though I suppose that could be put down to the camera. Minor details like that, however, are trivial: if you imagine a lit 2-D circle with let's say a black dot on the right hand side, then you rotate the circle, you will still see that black dot, and indeed it will seem to be getting closer and closer to the left of the now-ellipse.
There are features to the right of the full moon that can no longer be seen on the crescent, features to the left and bottom of the crescent that cannot be seen on the full, precisely as we would expect on a rotating face. Details are obscured where the full might of the moon shines, and when we are given a different angle more of those details come into view, hence being able to see more and more of the imperfections the less full-on the moonlight is.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 08:11:13 PM
On the left, your crescent moon rotated counter clockwise to align with the orientation of your full moon, and then overlayed with the full moon:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mmv3ur.jpg)

It's the same face. The portion of the crescent moon in darkness is still the same face, whether it's reflected light or self-luminescence. We just can't see it (though sometimes we can):

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/208k9jc.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 06, 2018, 08:38:56 PM
On the left, your crescent moon rotated counter clockwise to align with the orientation of your full moon, and then overlayed with the full moon:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mmv3ur.jpg)

You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2f37b5ceec36f02bb21f2f182ae8ac19)
At best two of those lines are shared, and that's unreliable for the reasons I went into before. One is just outright not there, and two you could connect with those vague smudges but there's hardly enough detail visible to claim such a thing.

Quote
It's the same face. The portion of the crescent moon in darkness is still the same face, whether it's reflected light or self-luminescence. We just can't see it (though sometimes we can):

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/208k9jc.jpg)
When has that ever been observed?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 08:52:43 PM
You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2f37b5ceec36f02bb21f2f182ae8ac19)
At best two of those lines are shared, and that's unreliable for the reasons I went into before. One is just outright not there, and two you could connect with those vague smudges but there's hardly enough detail visible to claim such a thing.
I worked with what you provided, but those are the same Mares, whether fully illuminated or all that's visible in the crescent.

You will not find a crescent moon image or take one yourself that will show a set of features that can't be aligned with the full moon.

I'm with you on the feasibility of a self-luminescent moon as an alternative to a reflective moon to resolve the geometry issues of a full moon over a flat earth. But whether flat earth or globe earth, the moon always has the same side facing earth. It doesn't rotate in that axis, and that's not just indoctrinated RET bias carried over to FET. That's what the zetetic observer sees as well.

You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 08:56:46 PM
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/208k9jc.jpg)
When has that ever been observed?
[/quote]
When this photo was taken, for one. I can attest to seeing that.

In fact, now would be a good time for it, either just before sunrise or a little after sunset wherever you are. If I can, I'll grab a photo of the moon tonight after sunset and we can see if the crescent moon's unlit portion is dimly visible.  My skies are partly overcast right now, but I might have enough clearing to find the moon when this phenomenon is likely. Take a look yourself wherever you are (either tonight if the sun hasn't set yet or in the morning before sunrise if it's already nighttime where you are).
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 06, 2018, 09:13:33 PM
I worked with what you provided, but those are the same Mares, whether fully illuminated or all that's visible in the crescent.

You will not find a crescent moon image or take one yourself that will show a set of features that can't be aligned with the full moon.
You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific. Your definition of aligning them is meaningless, you are just overlaying them and using the features that only exist when you do so as evidence that they're the same. By that logic the moon could be an eyeball.


Quote
You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full.
And I'll be able to point out just as many features that aren't shared, as I've done. What you're providing is a mix of confirmation bias, associating spots that would appear in either case, and circular reasoning.

Quote
When this photo was taken, for one. I can attest to seeing that.

In fact, now would be a good time for it, either just before sunrise or a little after sunset wherever you are. If I can, I'll grab a photo of the moon tonight after sunset and we can see if the crescent moon's unlit portion is dimly visible.  My skies are partly overcast right now, but I might have enough clearing to find the moon when this phenomenon is likely. Take a look yourself wherever you are (either tonight if the sun hasn't set yet or in the morning before sunrise if it's already nighttime where you are).
I can never recall seeing any such thing in all my life. It is overcast where I am too, but I do have a memory.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: edby on July 06, 2018, 09:18:47 PM
It does not look the same. Look at photos, look at the moon itself, not the RE model.
Just so I understand, are you saying that the different images are not images of the same features, and therefore not of the same places on the moon? In other words, is it a bit like seeing different images of the earth from different angles, and confusing England with Japan?

I didn't understand the bit about Kermit the Frog. Why would we confuse the moon with a frog?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 09:33:46 PM
You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific.

I disagree, but okay. I think your self-luminescence theory has more plausibility if you accept that the moon keeps its same face toward the earth, but if you feel it must rotate for your theory to hold water, then good luck.

I'm willing to consider self-luminous moon but not if it requires a rotating moon (with respect to earth) because I don't see it. Call it confirmation bias if you think that's what it is.

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/s2gm6x.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JHelzer on July 06, 2018, 09:35:10 PM
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mmv3ur.jpg)
You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.

Hahaha.  JRowe sees two picture of the same object in different conditions and can't detect the similarities.  The crescent moon picture was taken with higher resolution than the other and therefore shows more detail, but JRowe believes that the "coarseness at the edge of the underside" means that the moon shows different faces at different times.

To top it off, when a helpful person rotates the image and draws lines to make the matching feature obvious, JRowe calls foul with the typical flat-earth you used CGI on the image.  Classic!

JRowe, if you can't understand that the side of the Moon facing Earth is always the same, you're not going to generate credibility for your other viewpoints. Especially when you show us a picture of them looking the same and then claim louder that they are different.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 06, 2018, 10:16:40 PM
Just so I understand, are you saying that the different images are not images of the same features, and therefore not of the same places on the moon? In other words, is it a bit like seeing different images of the earth from different angles, and confusing England with Japan?

I didn't understand the bit about Kermit the Frog. Why would we confuse the moon with a frog?
Some of the features are the same; if you draw on a circle and rotate it away, you will still see those features. This isn't like the model of a rotating Earth because it is a singular basically flat face that's visible, and rotating away, hence the change of shape. But yes, in general they're not the same locations, and they don't look it.
Kermit it just brought up because of how the images were overlaid. Whole new features were added to the crescent that were not actually visible because they existed on the full moon laid over it. By that logic you could overlay the image of a full moon on anything, like Kermit, and identify features that way.
What matters is what is actually seen.

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mmv3ur.jpg)
You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.

Hahaha.  JRowe sees two picture of the same object in different conditions and can't detect the similarities.  The crescent moon picture was taken with higher resolution than the other and therefore shows more detail, but JRowe believes that the "coarseness at the edge of the underside" means that the moon shows different faces at different times.

To top it off, when a helpful person rotates the image and draws lines to make the matching feature obvious, JRowe calls foul with the typical flat-earth you used CGI on the image.  Classic!

JRowe, if you can't understand that the side of the Moon facing Earth is always the same, you're not going to generate credibility for your other viewpoints. Especially when you show us a picture of them looking the same and then claim louder that they are different.

You are more than welcome to look at other images of the crescent moon. Coarseness along the border is universally visible.
I didn't call CGI, I pointed out that he literally overlaid the full moon onto the crescent moon. He is drawing lines from an image of the full moon to an image of the full moon, why are you attaching significance to the fact that they match? What is it you imagine he did?
Instead of your typical blind REer scorn on anything that dares be different, how about an honest analysis of the situation? I note you ignore the fact that I responded to that image by again posting the original crescent to point out that the features he's drawing a line between objectively do not exist on the image of the crescent, and instead only exist on the image of the full moon that he overlaid. Yes I'm calling foul because overlaying the image of the full moon is exactly what he did. If you disagree, please correct me, how do you think he laid one image on top of the other and created whole new features that it is trivial to see did not exist in the original?
I mean for god's sake you can literally see the lines of the full moon's outline. This is hardly rocket science. He drew lines from an image of a full moon to an image of the same full moon. Why are you acting as though this is evidence?!
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 06, 2018, 10:19:36 PM
You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific.

I disagree, but okay. I think your self-luminescence theory has more plausibility if you accept that the moon keeps its same face toward the earth, but if you feel it must rotate for your theory to hold water, then good luck.

I'm willing to consider self-luminous moon but not if it requires a rotating moon (with respect to earth) because I don't see it. Call it confirmation bias if you think that's what it is.

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/s2gm6x.jpg)

That's always an issue with REers. I've noticed it constantly, the adamant belief that an observation may have only one explanation.
Add all the labels you want, those features do not look the same on a full moon, as pointed out. You get a few similarities, sure, because you are still looking at the same face, but everything about them does change. Size, shape... This is true even under your model. Take a mountain; on a full moon that'd barely be noticable, on a more crescent moon it'd have become a black triangle.
RET itself is based on the idea that it isn't going to look the same. Proceeding to claim that it does is headscratching at the very least.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 06, 2018, 10:49:44 PM
That's always an issue with REers. I've noticed it constantly, the adamant belief that an observation may have only one explanation.
Add all the labels you want, those features do not look the same on a full moon, as pointed out. You get a few similarities, sure, because you are still looking at the same face, but everything about them does change. Size, shape... This is true even under your model. Take a mountain; on a full moon that'd barely be noticable, on a more crescent moon it'd have become a black triangle.
RET itself is based on the idea that it isn't going to look the same. Proceeding to claim that it does is headscratching at the very least.

With overlay (top)
Without overlay (bottom)

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/121u63r.jpg)

Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help. It's no skin off my back if you insist the moon isn't always presenting its same face toward earth. I wasn't even addressing self-luminescence in this topic. I'm addressing what the TFES.org wiki states.

I have no problem with you changing the tact of this topic, but I'm not going to spend time trying to persuade you that you're seeing the same face of the moon when it's gone to crescent. If that's crucial to the non-Wiki self-luminescence theory you are promoting, maybe generate a new topic on the subject? I'm going to stick with the reflective moon/same face notion.

Good luck.

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JHelzer on July 07, 2018, 03:34:02 AM
I pointed out that he literally overlaid the full moon onto the crescent moon. He is drawing lines from an image of the full moon to an image of the full moon, why are you attaching significance to the fact that they match? What is it you imagine he did?

Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help.

This is what I imagined he did.  He rotated and overlayed the images to help you see the similarities.

Why are you acting as though this is evidence?!

Because it is evidence.  When you overlay the images and the features line up, it is evidence.  Now that he has shown it without the overlay, can you see it?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JHelzer on July 07, 2018, 03:41:34 AM
Here is an image of the full moon with enough resolution to include "coarseness"

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/FullMoon2010.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 07, 2018, 03:28:05 PM
With overlay (top)
Without overlay (bottom)

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/121u63r.jpg)
You do realise two of those lines are connecting to an utter lack of features on the crescent, one is connecting to a very different looking feature, and two to contorted shapes right?

Quote
Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help. It's no skin off my back if you insist the moon isn't always presenting its same face toward earth. I wasn't even addressing self-luminescence in this topic. I'm addressing what the TFES.org wiki states.

I have no problem with you changing the tact of this topic, but I'm not going to spend time trying to persuade you that you're seeing the same face of the moon when it's gone to crescent. If that's crucial to the non-Wiki self-luminescence theory you are promoting, maybe generate a new topic on the subject? I'm going to stick with the reflective moon/same face notion.

Good luck.
i didn't say it was a trick, it's an instance of circular thinking; it's the model that you're used to so it's the one you expect to see, but look at the lines you are actually drawing. You've connected a blank spot on the crescent with a feature on the full moon, and ambiguous smudges with defined shapes. You're seeing what you want to see.
The topic seems to be the claim that the full moon cannot exist on a flat Earth. it can.

Because it is evidence.  When you overlay the images and the features line up, it is evidence.  Now that he has shown it without the overlay, can you see it?
Except  for the fact that, yet again, those features don't exist. Look at the actual image aready.

Here is an image of the full moon with enough resolution to include "coarseness"

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/FullMoon2010.jpg)
Which bears no resemblance to the speckled, coarse border i drew attention to in the crescent, what's your point? What did you think i was talking about?!
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 07, 2018, 04:33:05 PM
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 07, 2018, 04:55:34 PM
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?

I thought about trying that tact, but that requires a presumption that it's the sun that's illuminating the moon's surface. You and I know that features like craters will cast shadows when the sun is off to the right (as oriented in the crescent moon image) but won't when directly facing the side of the moon facing the earth (in the full moon picture.)

But JRowe see's "course" features and doesn't believe those are the same features as in the full moon image. It has to be a different part of the moon because how else would 'course' features become smoothed? They can't because the moon is emanating light itself, so that HAS to be a different location on the moon.

This would make sense for explaining moon phases on a flat earth if the sun and moon were both overhead and a spotlight sun wasn't casting any light on the moon at all. Then a self-luminous moon could explain the phases. I just think that it would have to be a dynamic luminescence that moves or sweeps across the side of the moon always facing downward toward earth rather than one portion of the moon that is luminescent with the moon revolving to reveal its lit side and then its dark side. That doesn't match with observation. At least not mine, where I can easily distinguish the same visible features of the moon regardless of its phase.

If it must be that the moon revolves such that the same side doesn't always face toward earth, the I think that kills self-luminescence in its tracks. If you can allow that the moon always keeps one side facing toward earth and that it's luminescence is cyclic by area -- however that might ultimately be explained -- the theory can survive and move on to address other challenges. But even most flat earthers will deny that the same "underside" of the moon is all we ever see from an earth vantage point. JRowe's theory can't tolerate that so he will not concede that the features we point out are, in fact, the same features on a fully illuminated moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 07, 2018, 05:26:02 PM
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
1. What does that have to do with the moon?
2. Depends on the season.

Really have no idea where you're planning to go with this.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 07, 2018, 05:38:09 PM
JRowe's theory can't tolerate that so he will not concede that the features we point out are, in fact, the same features on a fully illuminated moon.
Because they are absolutely, unambiguously not. Let's snip away the rest of the image, let's look just at the features you pointed out as meant to be similar without worrying about your mind playing tricks because you expect them to be the same. From your image, the lines you drew. You're welcome to do the same.
(https://i.imgur.com/tGV1yEl.png)

How can it reasonably be concluded that these are somehow the same features? RET says they are because that is what the model wants, not because it is what is observed, and i urge you to look at the actual observations here.
The first is a completely different shape, there's nothing to even compare on the second, the third you could maybe argue for inasmuch as 'oh, something's there' but not much more, and the fourth and fifth to finish off have nothing whatsoever in common.

You have a few similarities on the large scale, yes, because features that had been on the right of the moon would seem closer to the left as it turns (see the circle and dot illustration i used earlier), but they are far too twisted and contorted to believe that you are looking at the same features from the same perspective, when they are even there at all.

When expectation is taken out of the picture, can you honestly say to me that it looks like they're the same?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 07, 2018, 05:51:13 PM
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
1. What does that have to do with the moon?

Sunrise/sunset occurs on the terminator line on both Earth and Moon. No?


2. Depends on the season.

The time would change, but it would always be sunrise or sunset time, wouldn't it?

 

Really have no idea where you're planning to go with this.

See above.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 07, 2018, 05:55:31 PM
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
1. What does that have to do with the moon?

Sunrise/sunset occurs on the terminator line on both Earth and Moon. No?


2. Depends on the season.

The time would change, but it would always be sunrise or sunset time, wouldn't it?

 

Really have no idea where you're planning to go with this.

See above.

On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: edby on July 07, 2018, 06:02:42 PM
On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.
Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 07, 2018, 06:05:13 PM
On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.
Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10056.msg158077#msg158077
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 07, 2018, 06:50:47 PM
On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.
Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?
You guys are missing JRowe's contention. The moon is lit not by the sun. It issues its own light. That's why he's having difficulty accepting that the features he calls "course" in one image or the same that don't look coarse in another. There are shadows on crater walls in the crescent moon photo. But in the full moon, those shadows are missing. We know that's because the sun's angle is causing the shadows (or lack thereof). JRowe insists these aren't the same surface features because the moon has rotated.

To contend with that, you can't rely on sun illuminating moon notions. Imagine the moon is internally lit. How do you explain the changing of the features we see? How can that be Theophilus crater in both the crescent and full moon images if they look different?

You've got to convince him that the moon isn't rotating and presenting we earthbound observers with a different face/side as it goes through its phases. Good luck.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 07, 2018, 08:19:17 PM
Because they are absolutely, unambiguously not. Let's snip away the rest of the image, let's look just at the features you pointed out as meant to be similar without worrying about your mind playing tricks because you expect them to be the same. From your image, the lines you drew. You're welcome to do the same.
(https://i.imgur.com/tGV1yEl.png)

How can it reasonably be concluded that these are somehow the same features? RET says they are because that is what the model wants, not because it is what is observed, and i urge you to look at the actual observations here.
The first is a completely different shape, there's nothing to even compare on the second, the third you could maybe argue for inasmuch as 'oh, something's there' but not much more, and the fourth and fifth to finish off have nothing whatsoever in common.

You have a few similarities on the large scale, yes, because features that had been on the right of the moon would seem closer to the left as it turns (see the circle and dot illustration i used earlier), but they are far too twisted and contorted to believe that you are looking at the same features from the same perspective, when they are even there at all.

When expectation is taken out of the picture, can you honestly say to me that it looks like they're the same?

When snipped out of context, and to the boundary limits you chose, I would be hard pressed to identify any but the 1st and 3rd ones.

But the first one is clearly the Sea of Serenity in either picture. It has that distinctive "horn" that faces to the NE with the crater Posidonius in its lower crook.

Here's a quick collage I assemble of pics picked off the Web of the Mare from different aspects and on moons at different phases, some of which I annotated to point out the distinctive crater.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2pplnk9.jpg)


The third line is also obviously the Sea of Tranquility and I wouldn't need any other references to ID it.

The rest though? Yeah, I'd need to see what surrounded them to know what the were for sure. The 3 big Mares: Serenity, Tranquility and Fertility are good landmarks for other features. Sea of Crisis is what I imagine as the "eye" of the moon, always just above its leading (Eastern) edge as it transits the sky. (When south of the moon's latitude the Crisium 'eye' will seem to be below the Eastern center, but then I'm northern hemi biased.)

I understand the concept of confirmation bias and human nature to try to force patterns into where there are none, to try to fit a mold. I know that can happen, and I try to guard against it. But I'm afraid you will find yourself in the extreme minority of those who don't see and recognize that the same side of the moon faces the earth regardless of phase. You should consider that maybe -- just MAYBE -- you are rejecting the identification of moon features for confirmation bias reasons, in order to bolster your self-luminescence theory.

Taking a minority position isn't a bad thing. It would be amazing if you detected that the moon does, in fact, rotate so that we see it's other side during quarter or crescent moons. That would be revolutionary. Unfortunately, I can't buy it. I see the same moon features, with changes to their presentation having to do with the direction and amplitude of light cast on and reflected off of them. Self-luminescence is already far-fetched, but phenomenological, I can entertain the idea IF the moon isn't rotating and the luminescence varies, like the skin of an octopus. Otherwise, no. The moon is tidally locked and always presents its same side to the earth. That's not just drilled into my head or regurgitating what I'm told. That's what I see.

And just for the record, I think I've been polite to you. I haven't disparaged your theory or you at all. I think you will have better luck persuading other if you don't disparage them like you've tried with me. My ego isn't threatened by it, so it doesn't bother me if you think I'm a loon or blind or ignorant. But you won't convince many people that way. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 07, 2018, 09:18:23 PM
When snipped out of context, and to the boundary limits you chose, I would be hard pressed to identify any but the 1st and 3rd ones.

But the first one is clearly the Sea of Serenity in either picture. It has that distinctive "horn" that faces to the NE with the crater Posidonius in its lower crook.
I chose the boundaries to fully encompass the features in question. Yes, it is snipped of context, but only so more than pattern recognition is at play.
You probably could make an argument that it is the same Sea in each, but my point for the first image stands; it does not appear the same. You have a couple of similar features, as we would expect to see on one lit rotating face, but it is compressed as though viewed at an angle.
I must disagree on the third one though. Beyond the color, I can see no similarity of shape, size or detail. I suppose you could argue the triangle at the bottom, but on the left image it blends too well with the right of the image so it's hard to believe it's genuinely a triangle, rather than actively searching for things that could be construed as similar. Beyond that you have details in one missing in the other, and vice versa, and huge differences down the right hand side.

Quote
Here's a quick collage I assemble of pics picked off the Web of the Mare from different aspects and on moons at different phases, some of which I annotated to point out the distinctive crater.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2pplnk9.jpg)
To tackle this in rows:
Row one. They are both grey ovals, I will give you that, but past that I can't credit much in the way of similarity. You have all the details surrounding it on the left which cannot be seen on the right; while you might argue that's just camera focus, the problem there is that there are other dots, other features that bear a similarity across both (such as the crater you point the arrow at) and yet multiple comparable aspects completely lack an equivalent.
Row two. Focusing on the larger two images, I really cannot credit them as being similar, there are huge discrepancies in shape. In the interests of making references easier, the left-hand image is similar to a whale, water shooting out of its spout, with the tail to the left and head to the right, almost looking head-on at you. I understand the second image is rotated, but the water shooting from the spout is far wider in the second, there is a crater up and left of the tail in the first image that is not present in the second (there's one in a vaguely similar location, but it itself looks too different to be the same). You have a dot in the first image below the crater you point an arrow at that does not appear in the second, as well as a whole slew of craters on the underside of the head where the reverse is true. The angle of the tail too does not seem to line up, though my image editing software doesn't have as clean a rotation tool so I can't be sure.
Row three. The crater pointed out with the red arrow does not exist in the first image. There is a darker spot under the arrowhead that is not present in the third, and all that arrow points to is a faint smudge that frankly could be anything, and lacks the adjacent craters that are in the last, to say nothing of how the overall angle of each Sea shifts.

I'll give you that there are similarities, but as there is only one face of the moon we would expect to see similar features. However they are viewed from different angles, hence the distortions we see above. I cannot credit the claim that all of those images are of the same face from the same angle with all those flaws mentioned above, just to begin with.

Quote
I understand the concept of confirmation bias and human nature to try to force patterns into where there are none, to try to fit a mold. I know that can happen, and I try to guard against it. But I'm afraid you will find yourself in the extreme minority of those who don't see and recognize that the same side of the moon faces the earth regardless of phase. You should consider that maybe -- just MAYBE -- you are rejecting the identification of moon features for confirmation bias reasons, in order to bolster your self-luminescence theory.
I am in the extreme minority as far as what shape I think the Earth is too. I'm used to it. I have refined my theory of the Earth's shape and how it works many times over before it reached the current point, and I was happy to do so; I had no emotional connection to any tenet, and self-luminescence was the option that made the most sense. There are too many discrepancies for the idea that it is the same place to be scientifically held, in my mind, and I reached that conclusion by trying to disprove it. I did not reach this conclusion by trying to make it work; I have been willing to discard multiple aspects of my model as it developed.
The problem is that, as you say, you use those large grey areas as landmarks, and as a result you assign meaning to smudges and smears and specks, even when some are missing, or unexpectedly present, or the wrong shape or wrong orientation.

Quote
Self-luminescence is already far-fetched
Why? I have already gone over the mechanism.

Quote
And just for the record, I think I've been polite to you. I haven't disparaged your theory or you at all. I think you will have better luck persuading other if you don't disparage them like you've tried with me. My ego isn't threatened by it, so it doesn't bother me if you think I'm a loon or blind or ignorant. But you won't convince many people that way. Just sayin'.
Apologies if anything I've said to you has come across as disparaging, none of it was intended, and especially not directed at you. (I mostly spent time on the other site so it's refreshing to be able to have a good discussion and this is one of the best I've had, I absolutely do not intend to jeopardize that).
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 07, 2018, 10:45:25 PM
Okay. Well, I see similarities. You don't. We'll have to move on from that.

I haven't seen moon self-luminescence discussed before, and it's not part of the Flat Earth "could be's" I've seen before, so maybe that's worth starting a new discussion topic since the premise of this one is that the sun illuminates the moon. Having something new to ponder would be nice.

As far as whether or not the moon revolves such that we see different sides during its phases, I'll take it as a challenge to provide a photograph of a non-full moon in which the dark portion is dimly lit and visible. I checked this morning, but though the sky was clear it was already too bright. I've seen it and I can find online examples of the phenomenon, but I'd rather capture it myself.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 07, 2018, 11:28:55 PM
So, is the entirety of the discussion restricted to these two images?

Astronomers have observed and photographed the Moon far more extensively. You can buy any number of Lunar Atlases over the counter or from your favourite South-American-river-themed online retailer.

Honestly, I don't see how, with so much information out there, how there can be any dispute over which feature is which.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 07, 2018, 11:38:48 PM
We can show that the sun is causing the illumination of the Moon by going out in the day, when the Moon is visible, and holding up any kind of sports ball or similar in front of the Moon.

The illumination pattern on the Moon is reflected exactly in the illumination pattern on the ball

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7 (https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7)

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L (https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L)

So, if the Moon is its own source of illumination, it's lighting itself to match not only the pattern that indicates it is being illuminate by the sun, but also the pattern cast on any other spherical object in sunlight. Quite a feat, or quite a coincidence.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 07, 2018, 11:43:19 PM
I model it so:

Why? When multiple countries have sent orbital craft around it, when some have mapped and photographed the far side as well as nearside, why would you model it like this?

A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.

Inconsistent with experimental results from the surface, though.  

A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.

Inconsistent with physical observation and the actuality of manned and unmanned lunar orbital missions. See the most recent, a joint Chinese/Saudi Arabian mission;

(http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/14/137253874_15290204777411n.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 08, 2018, 12:57:44 AM
As far as whether or not the moon revolves such that we see different sides during its phases, I'll take it as a challenge to provide a photograph of a non-full moon in which the dark portion is dimly lit and visible. I checked this morning, but though the sky was clear it was already too bright. I've seen it and I can find online examples of the phenomenon, but I'd rather capture it myself.
Just for a point of clarification, as it seems as though there may be some misunderstanding here, it is not so much seeing different sides during its phases, but rather seeing the one side from different angles. Only one face of the moon emits light (reasons gone into previously), so it is the features on that which are observed. Yes, other sides rotate into view, but we don't see them; they're unlit, hence causing the phases.
Just making sure that's clear.

So, is the entirety of the discussion restricted to these two images?

Astronomers have observed and photographed the Moon far more extensively. You can buy any number of Lunar Atlases over the counter or from your favourite South-American-river-themed online retailer.

Honestly, I don't see how, with so much information out there, how there can be any dispute over which feature is which.
Bring in whatever images you want, Bobby did. I just picked up two of the top results when I typed 'full' and 'crescent' moon into google as an illustration. Yes, there are plenty of images out there, I've seen them and I stand by what I've said.

We can show that the sun is causing the illumination of the Moon by going out in the day, when the Moon is visible, and holding up any kind of sports ball or similar in front of the Moon.

The illumination pattern on the Moon is reflected exactly in the illumination pattern on the ball

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7 (https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7)

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L (https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L)

So, if the Moon is its own source of illumination, it's lighting itself to match not only the pattern that indicates it is being illuminate by the sun, but also the pattern cast on any other spherical object in sunlight. Quite a feat, or quite a coincidence.
What? You're going to get a different pattern on the ball depending on whether it's noon, sunrise or sunset but I don't think anyone, RE or FE, is going to claim moon phase changes daily.
That is just blatantly not true.

I model it so:

Why? When multiple countries have sent orbital craft around it, when some have mapped and photographed the far side as well as nearside, why would you model it like this?

A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.

Inconsistent with experimental results from the surface, though.  

A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.

Inconsistent with physical observation and the actuality of manned and unmanned lunar orbital missions. See the most recent, a joint Chinese/Saudi Arabian mission;

(http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/14/137253874_15290204777411n.jpg)

And if space travel were real you might have a point.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on July 08, 2018, 01:45:57 AM
I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.

FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.

I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.
This photo is somewhat overexposed to show earthshine illuminating that part not lit by the sun:
(https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA1MC8xNjQvb3JpZ2luYWwvTW9vbkVhcnRoc2hpbmVDaHVtYWNrLmpwZw==)
The crescent moon lit up by earthshine was captured by astrophotographer John Chumack on Sept. 8, 2015.
Credit: John Chumack | www.galacticimages.com (http://www.galacticimages.com)
Compare this with a good full moon photo and see if it is almost the same face, possibly rotated.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 08, 2018, 01:55:21 AM
As far as whether or not the moon revolves such that we see different sides during its phases, I'll take it as a challenge to provide a photograph of a non-full moon in which the dark portion is dimly lit and visible. I checked this morning, but though the sky was clear it was already too bright. I've seen it and I can find online examples of the phenomenon, but I'd rather capture it myself.
Just for a point of clarification, as it seems as though there may be some misunderstanding here, it is not so much seeing different sides during its phases, but rather seeing the one side from different angles. Only one face of the moon emits light (reasons gone into previously), so it is the features on that which are observed. Yes, other sides rotate into view, but we don't see them; they're unlit, hence causing the phases.
Just making sure that's clear.
This does clarify a bit a misunderstanding I was under, but it raises different questions that I'd rather not belabor.  Why don't we move this to a new Flat Earth Theory discussion topic and start fresh? I can do it, but I don't want to appear to be framing the discussion as a flat earth vs. round earth debate. I'd prefer to approach it as a germ for discussion for both flat and round earth advocates to critique or evaluate. I'll present any further challenges there, and I think I can do so using "zetetic" methods vice relying on a presumption of defending either a round or flat earth model. (I hope.)

The challenge to a full moon possibility proposed in this topic assumes a reflected light moon and not a moon emanating its own light.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 08:26:36 AM
We can show that the sun is causing the illumination of the Moon by going out in the day, when the Moon is visible, and holding up any kind of sports ball or similar in front of the Moon.

The illumination pattern on the Moon is reflected exactly in the illumination pattern on the ball

(Links to images above)

So, if the Moon is its own source of illumination, it's lighting itself to match not only the pattern that indicates it is being illuminate by the sun, but also the pattern cast on any other spherical object in sunlight. Quite a feat, or quite a coincidence.
What? You're going to get a different pattern on the ball depending on whether it's noon, sunrise or sunset but I don't think anyone, RE or FE, is going to claim moon phase changes daily.

I didn't say the phase would change daily. I said that if you have both sun and moon in the daytime sky, and perform the above, the sun/shade pattern on your ball always matches the phase of the Moon at the time you do this. I said nothing about the phase changing within the day.


And if space travel were real you might have a point.

Really? You expect everyone to regard that as a cogent argument against the accumulated evidence from some 130 separate missions to and around the Moon from at least four different countries?

You get to dodge the evidence with "Space travel isn't real" ???

Do we get to respond with "superheated cylinders don't exist in space" ??

A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 08, 2018, 09:55:14 AM
This does clarify a bit a misunderstanding I was under, but it raises different questions that I'd rather not belabor.  Why don't we move this to a new Flat Earth Theory discussion topic and start fresh? I can do it, but I don't want to appear to be framing the discussion as a flat earth vs. round earth debate. I'd prefer to approach it as a germ for discussion for both flat and round earth advocates to critique or evaluate. I'll present any further challenges there, and I think I can do so using "zetetic" methods vice relying on a presumption of defending either a round or flat earth model. (I hope.)

The challenge to a full moon possibility proposed in this topic assumes a reflected light moon and not a moon emanating its own light.

Happy to, though I will still reply when people respond to me here. Make whatever threads you want and let me know, I'll be happy to join them.


That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.
How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.

I didn't say the phase would change daily. I said that if you have both sun and moon in the daytime sky, and perform the above, the sun/shade pattern on your ball always matches the phase of the Moon at the time you do this. I said nothing about the phase changing within the day.
Read my post. The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.


Quote
Really? You expect everyone to regard that as a cogent argument against the accumulated evidence from some 130 separate missions to and around the Moon from at least four different countries?

You get to dodge the evidence with "Space travel isn't real" ???

Do we get to respond with "superheated cylinders don't exist in space" ??

A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
Sure, if you were going to put in the effort to say why. FEers (and soem REer for that matter) have dedicated plenty of time to showing why everything from the motive to the consequences of space travel is suspect.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 11:52:32 AM
The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.

Yes, the angle of the sunlight on the Moon, as seen from Earth, will vary, but the phase of the moon will not noticeably change.

Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on July 08, 2018, 12:00:11 PM
That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.
How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.
Well, I and many others have. Just do an internet search on "photos moon lit by earthshine" - some matches just illustrations and drawings but there are many of the "moon lit by earthshine".
Here's another:
Quote from: Deborah Byrd
Crescent moon with earthshine

(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2013/12/moon-earthshine-Abhijit-Juvekar-12-1-2013.jpg)
EarthSky Facebook friend Abhijit Juvekar captured this crescent moon with earthshine on December 1, 2013.
Thank you, Abhijit!
Here’s the moon on December 1, a waxing crescent moon in the evening sky. You’ll see a moon much like this, but with an increasingly fatter crescent, in the coming evenings. Abhijit Juvekar, who captured and labeled this photo, wrote:    The bright area is direct sunlight falling on moon while the faint area is called ‘earthshine.’
    Earthshine is also sunlight, reflected from the Earth and falling back onto the moon’s surface.

    Image shot using Canon EOS 550D with Sigma 70-300mm Lens.
    Place – Lonavala, India.
    1 Dec 2013

Thank you, Abhijit!

From: EarthSky, Crescent moon with earthshine, By Deborah Byrd in Today's Image | December 4, 2013 (http://earthsky.org/todays-image/crescent-moon-with-earthshine)
And this site has High Dynamic Range photo, HDR Crescent Moon With Earthshine (http://www.astropix.com/html/planetary/hdr_crescent_moon_earthshine.html).
I didn't show that one because it combined multiple exposures to get a wider dynamic range and you might call that ";) PhotoShopping ;)" though my camera can do it to a limited extent internally.

But the whole point of these "earthshine photos" is that they show that the same of the moon we see is the same whatever its phase. All that changes is the fraction illuminated.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 12:12:07 PM
Sure, if you were going to put in the effort to say why.

Your superheated cylinder theory is contradicted by the real-world data, experiences and observations of almost 50 years of sending craft to and around the Moon.

Much of the data is summarised in The Lunar Sourcebook -https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/ (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/)

Missions are summarised on wikipedia and other places. Photos, anecdotes, etc are a google search away, or in a library.

I could fill page upon page with a continuation of the above.

FEers (and soem REer for that matter) have dedicated plenty of time to showing why everything from the motive to the consequences of space travel is suspect.

Merely saying it's suspect is not a disproof of any of it. No space mission has ever reported seeing a superheated cylinder where our Moon is supposed to be. What evidence do you have of it, beyond your theory?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 01:22:54 PM
Comparison moons at https://imgur.com/a/Qked6cR (https://imgur.com/a/Qked6cR), and inline below

First image from https://photographylife.com/landscapes/how-to-photograph-moon (https://photographylife.com/landscapes/how-to-photograph-moon), the photographer's 'straight from the camera' image, an almost-full moon, almost entirely lit by sunlight

Second image from the HDR site mentioned a couple of posts above. The Moon a couple of days past New Moon, almost entirely lit by earthlight, not sunlight.

Both annotated to show matching features. One rotated to match the other.

One yellow dot = Mare Serenitatis
Two yellow dots = Mare Tranquillitatis
Three yellow dots = Mare Imbrium

One red dot = Tycho
Two red dots = Sanus Iridium
Three red dots = Mare Fecunditatis

Green circles (counter-clockwise from Mare Imbrium) = Kepler, Mare Humorum, Mare Crisium

(https://i.imgur.com/aBtzztY.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/ScX1oyb.jpg)

Same features? Or not?

 
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 01:50:01 PM
Same again, with more features indicated. Am I the only one who sees the pattern here?

(https://i.imgur.com/vIGD6nH.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/cjlQsRu.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 08, 2018, 05:31:20 PM
The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.

Yes, the angle of the sunlight on the Moon, as seen from Earth, will vary, but the phase of the moon will not noticeably change.

Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?
No, you haven't done that, this whole line of inquiry is ludicrous. The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun. Are you kidding me?! Seriously, what the actual thork are you talking about?

How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.
Well, I and many others have.
Do you take pleasure in completely ignoring every single question I ask you? This is the second thread.
How. Does. That. Exist?

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 08, 2018, 05:34:33 PM
Merely saying it's suspect is not a disproof of any of it. No space mission has ever reported seeing a superheated cylinder where our Moon is supposed to be. What evidence do you have of it, beyond your theory?
I am not going to let you drag this topic to the conspiracy, it is a completely different subject. If there aren't other threads on it start one, but why space travel is faked is huge, detailed, and nothing to do with how the moon works.

As for those photos, same point as I made to Rabinoz and to Bobby before, the moon does not look like that. I've seen gibbous, half, crescent, new, never lit-crescent-dimly-lit-gibbous.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 08, 2018, 05:42:22 PM
The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.

Yes, the angle of the sunlight on the Moon, as seen from Earth, will vary, but the phase of the moon will not noticeably change.

Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?
No, you haven't done that, this whole line of inquiry is ludicrous. The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun. Are you kidding me?! Seriously, what the actual thork are you talking about?

I don't think you are getting it.

1: Use any day where the sun shines and the moon is visible.
2: Hold a small ball in front of you in the direction of the moon (so that it is just in front or besides the moon for comparison)
3: Observe
Result: The small ball is exactly lit just like the moon, showing the same pattern of shadow as the moon.

I've done this myself aswell, and it ALWAYS shows this result.

If we use this observation, and construct an explanation that the moon is lit by the sun, it makes perfect sense.
If we then apply this explanation to all observations of the moon, we can easily conclude that the sun goes below the horizon and below the ground we stand on, especially on a full moon, where it should be opposite the direction of the moon.
It also explains why there is never a full moon when the sun is up and why the new moon is only present when the sun is up.

Everything points to a globe with these observations, but as all FEers, you will either reject the observations, try to make some weird magical FE logic for the observation, or ignore it completely.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JRowe on July 08, 2018, 05:52:28 PM
I don't think you are getting it.

1: Use any day where the sun shines and the moon is visible.
2: Hold a small ball in front of you in the direction of the moon (so that it is just in front or besides the moon for comparison)
3: Observe
Result: The small ball is exactly lit just like the moon, showing the same pattern of shadow as the moon.

I've done this myself aswell, and it ALWAYS shows this result.
I get it, it's not complicated, it is still objectively rubbish. If you hold a ball up at sunrise the, say, left side of it will be lit. If you hold it up at sunset, the right side will then be lit. Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day. Am I seriously going to need to repeat this again? To say nothing of the only significant part of Tumeni's claim, that the 'pattern of illumination' rather than mere direction would match. Feel free to show me a ball illuminated like a full moon or a new moon at sunrise, noon and sunset.


Yes, there is some correllation between the Sun and the moon (the same basic force is responsible for their movement, long story) but not to the degree you are proposing, and that experiment is nonsense.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 05:56:57 PM
I get it, it's not complicated, it is still objectively rubbish. If you hold a ball up at sunrise the, say, left side of it will be lit. If you hold it up at sunset, the right side will then be lit. Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day.

You won't see the Moon in the sky for the whole of this duration. You can only do this when the sun and moon are both in the sky.

Have you actually tried it, or are you insisting that it's "objectively rubbish" on how you think it will work?




To say nothing of the only significant part of Tumeni's claim, that the 'pattern of illumination' rather than mere direction would match. Feel free to show me a ball illuminated like a full moon or a new moon at sunrise, noon and sunset.

Nobody said you would be able to choose all times of the day to do this. You can only do it when sun and moon are both in the sky.


Yes, there is some correllation between the Sun and the moon (the same basic force is responsible for their movement, long story) but not to the degree you are proposing, and that experiment is nonsense.

But have. you. tried. it?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 08, 2018, 05:57:18 PM
I don't think you are getting it.

1: Use any day where the sun shines and the moon is visible.
2: Hold a small ball in front of you in the direction of the moon (so that it is just in front or besides the moon for comparison)
3: Observe
Result: The small ball is exactly lit just like the moon, showing the same pattern of shadow as the moon.

I've done this myself aswell, and it ALWAYS shows this result.
I get it, it's not complicated, it is still objectively rubbish. If you hold a ball up at sunrise the, say, left side of it will be lit. If you hold it up at sunset, the right side will then be lit. Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day. Am I seriously going to need to repeat this again? To say nothing of the only significant part of Tumeni's claim, that the 'pattern of illumination' rather than mere direction would match. Feel free to show me a ball illuminated like a full moon or a new moon at sunrise, noon and sunset.


Yes, there is some correllation between the Sun and the moon (the same basic force is responsible for their movement, long story) but not to the degree you are proposing, and that experiment is nonsense.

You are not getting it.

The moon like the sun, moves in the sky.
You are not simply looking at a ball.
You are looking at a ball in the direction of the moon...

Just like you can look at the ball from any other angle, the ball lit from the left while looking from 1 side, and the ball lit from the right when looking from the opposite side...
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 10:34:04 PM
Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?
No, you haven't done that

Yes, I have. See below for the pictures of me doing it.

The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun.

By the time the sun illuminates the 'other' side of the ball, the Moon is typically below the horizon, so the point is moot

Pics

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7 (https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7)

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L (https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L)

The first one was taken around 9am, with the Sun at ESE, and Moon at SSW, with roughly 90 degrees between them. So, by
the time the Sun was high in the sky, the Moon was out of sight beyond the western horizon.

Second one was later in the morning, a couple of days later.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on July 08, 2018, 10:38:51 PM
How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.
Well, I and many others have.
Do you take pleasure in completely ignoring every single question I ask you? This is the second thread.
How. Does. That. Exist?
I assumed that the term "earthshine photos" would be enough explanation. I'll do a bit of copy-n-paste in the hopes of getting a better explanation than I could hope to give:
Quote from: timeanddate.com
What Is Earthshine?
Earthshine is a dull glow which lights up the unlit part of the Moon because the Sun’s light reflects off the Earth's surface and back onto the Moon.

Why Does it Happen?
Earthshine occurs when sunlight reflects off the Earth's surface and illuminates the unlit portion of the Moon’s surface.

Since the light that generates earthshine is reflected twice – once off the Earth’s surface and then off the Moon’s surface, this light is much dimmer than the lit portion of the Moon.

This phenomenon is called planetshine when it occurs on other planets' moons.

Ability to Reflect Sunlight
Earthshine's brightness is also affected by the Moon's albedo. Albedo is a measurement of how much sunlight a celestial object can reflect. It is measured on a scale, which ranges from 0 to 1. An object that has albedo of 0 does not reflect sunlight and is perfectly dark. A celestial object with an albedo of 1 reflects all of the Sun's rays that reach it.

The Moon has an average albedo of 0.12, while the Earth's average albedo is 0.3. This means that the Moon reflects about 12% of the sunlight that reaches it. The Earth on the other hand, reflects about 30% of all the sunlight that hit its surface. Because of this, the Earth, when seen from the Moon would look about a 100 times brighter than a full Moon that is seen from the Earth.

Best Times to See Earthshine
Earthshine is most apparent one to five days before and after a New Moon. The best time of the day to see it is after sunset or before sunrise.
Sun and Moon in your city (https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/go.php?type=astro)

From: timeanddate.com, What Is Earthshine? (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/earthshine.html)
And there are hundreds of photos of the moon lit partly by earthshine shown in a simple search on the internet, including this one taken during a total solar eclipse:
(http://0e33611cb8e6da737d5c-e13b5a910e105e07f9070866adaae10b.r15.cf1.rackcdn.com/Alex-Barnedt1987A-Photography-Earthshine-Total-Eclipse--8-21-17_1503951664_lg.jpg)
Total Solar Eclipse Earthshine
Taken by Alex Barnedt/1987A Photography on August 21, 2017 @ Boysen Reservoir, Wyoming

For details about how the photo was produced see: (http://spaceweathergallery.com/images/eclipsegallery_header_pixmap.jpg) Total Solar Eclipse Earthshine (http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=138481)
Photos like that certainly prove that the moon is the cause of solar eclipses.




Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 11:05:34 PM
Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day.

The side that is lit barely changes over the course of a day, but your orientation, or the orientation of any observer, does. 
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 11:21:16 PM
As for those photos, same point as I made to Rabinoz and to Bobby before, the moon does not look like that. I've seen gibbous, half, crescent, new, never lit-crescent-dimly-lit-gibbous.

Of course it doesn't look like that to the naked eye, for the photographers have used over, under-exposure and combination of images to render it in a form that can be accommodated by digital photography.

But whether it looks like that is not the point. The point is that whether it's illuminated by sunlight (first photo) or by reflected earthlight (second photo) the features all match. Agreed? 
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 08, 2018, 11:37:57 PM
If you hold up a ball to the Half Moon, with the sun in the sky too, then, according to textbook Globe Earth facts, the sun is at one point of a triangle, with you and the Moon at the other two. It's roughly an iscocelese triangle, with two sides of 93 million miles, and one side of 230k miles.

To all intents and purposes, you and the Moon are at the same place in space, with regard to the sun.

If you then observe that the angle of the lit portion of the ball and the lit portion of the Moon is the same, doesn't that suggest they are both being lit by the sun?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on July 09, 2018, 12:48:39 AM
Try this instead. The image is a touch small, but I don't see features changing at all here. This is a photo of the moon taken by the same photographer all over the course of a single lunar cycle.

(http://astropixels.com/moon/phases2/images/Phases10-5x3w.jpg)

The details on how/when/where these images were taken can be found here: http://astropixels.com/moon/phases2/Phases10-5x3.html

At a bare minimum I see no reasonable change in features across the middle row, at least those that are illuminated the whole time.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 09, 2018, 10:56:36 AM
(Bobby said ) "You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full."

And I'll be able to point out just as many features that aren't shared, as I've done.

Sorry, but I see nowhere in this thread where you've pointed out specific non-shared features. I invite you to present other Moon photos and indicate these features.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 09, 2018, 11:20:14 AM
(Bobby said ) "You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full."

And I'll be able to point out just as many features that aren't shared, as I've done.

Sorry, but I see nowhere in this thread where you've pointed out specific non-shared features. I invite you to present other Moon photos and indicate these features.
I think he is just in denial.

He can't accept that the moon isn't illuminating by itself, even when the evidence is clearly there throughout all photographs taken of the moon through all its phases.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on July 09, 2018, 05:37:48 PM
The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun.
Why would that happen?  You don't understand the globe model very well.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: douglips on July 09, 2018, 09:19:54 PM
Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day.

The side that is lit barely changes over the course of a day, but your orientation, or the orientation of any observer, does.

Here's a demonstration of diurnal libration, showing the face of the moon moving slightly over 4 hours.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/530699-parallax-libration-or-both/
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 09, 2018, 10:00:18 PM
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

This reply is about finite geometry. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof

This reply is about perspective.  It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.

He is complaining because he asks a question about flat earth models and gets 30 answers from people who either believe the earth is round or are undecided and the response from people who believe the earth is flat does nothing to help him understand a full moon.



Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,


I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon.  Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?


Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon


(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)



Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards
(https://i.imgur.com/ynDTEDo.jpg)


Can anyone help clear this up for me? And get back to the original post instead of debating if the moon rotates or not. The Wiki says that the moon is a higher altitude than the sun, the bendy light model says that the moon is a lower altitude than the sun and now there is a self lighting moon model. Isn't there a way that we can disprove one of these? I feel like so many different answers just makes things much more confusing.

should the self lit moon be added to the flat earth wiki? why is the bendy light model not at all represented on the flat earth wiki? Why has no one other than me attempted to diagram where the moon is in relation to the sun during a full moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 09, 2018, 11:25:34 PM
Here's a demonstration of diurnal libration, showing the face of the moon moving slightly over 4 hours.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/530699-parallax-libration-or-both/
I love this one over a 30 day period:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/22esgh.jpg)

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 03:02:55 PM
Isn't there a way that we can disprove one of these?

Yes. Power up a spacecraft, and send it around or onto the Moon. Take photographs, perform other experiments upon it. Photograph the journey to and from.

Already done numerous times - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon

Why has no one other than me attempted to diagram where the moon is in relation to the sun during a full moon.

Apart from hundreds upon thousands of astronomers, who contributed their observations to thousands of textbooks?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 10, 2018, 07:16:06 PM
Why has no one other than me attempted to diagram where the moon is in relation to the sun during a full moon.

Apart from hundreds upon thousands of astronomers, who contributed their observations to thousands of textbooks?
He's talking about a diagram of the full moon in relation to the sun over a flat earth.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 10, 2018, 08:26:24 PM
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

This reply is about finite geometry. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof

This reply is about perspective.  It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.

He is complaining because he asks a question about flat earth models and gets 30 answers from people who either believe the earth is round or are undecided and the response from people who believe the earth is flat does nothing to help him understand a full moon.



Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,


I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon.  Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?


Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon


(https://i.imgur.com/LKGVcvu.png)



Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards
(https://i.imgur.com/ynDTEDo.jpg)


Can anyone help clear this up for me? And get back to the original post instead of debating if the moon rotates or not. The Wiki says that the moon is a higher altitude than the sun, the bendy light model says that the moon is a lower altitude than the sun and now there is a self lighting moon model. Isn't there a way that we can disprove one of these? I feel like so many different answers just makes things much more confusing.

should the self lit moon be added to the flat earth wiki? why is the bendy light model not at all represented on the flat earth wiki? Why has no one other than me attempted to diagram where the moon is in relation to the sun during a full moon.

The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 10, 2018, 08:42:35 PM
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.

This model makes a lot more sense to me. The light we get from the sun behaves much differently than the light the moon gets from the sun because of our atmosphere, perspective, refraction etc.

What does "Similar" altitudes mean?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 10, 2018, 09:07:46 PM
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.

Show us. Diagram it.

I can't find a way to line the sun and moon up so that the side lit fully by the sun is fully seen from earth.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 11, 2018, 12:46:54 AM
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.

Show us. Diagram it.

I can't find a way to line the sun and moon up so that the side lit fully by the sun is fully seen from earth.

I understand the suns light not being impeded by the atmosphere but The more I think about it the more I believe that the sun and the moon can't be at similar altitudes. If they were at similar altitudes then it would be a half moon if you were standing directly below the moon.


This video demonstrates if the moon and the sun are at similar altitudes.

https://youtu.be/kDmoI5F8-lw

It's a full moon for people in the middle of the circle, a half moon for people below the moon and a new moon for people on the outside of the circle.




The moon must be very far away in when it's full and very close when it's a new moon.

OR

The sun is very close during a full moon and very far during a new moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 11, 2018, 05:49:25 AM
^ You posted that before.

But don't forget:

"...in order to see a full moon with 100% totality...you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on,"

Source: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory
 (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory)

Nowhere on the flat earth of that video would anyone be able to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on. The issue of alignment in the critique of RE geometry is even more pronounced for flat earth models, including the one in that video.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 11, 2018, 05:14:41 PM
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.

Show us. Diagram it.

I can't find a way to line the sun and moon up so that the side lit fully by the sun is fully seen from earth.




I don't think you will get the diagram that you want from the people that you want it from.  I know you want a response from someone who believes the earth is flat but you will have to settle with someone who has no idea what the shape of the earth is because I've never been to space and never put a camera on a baloon. 

"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon


This one most accurately reflects the wiki:

As far as distances I have not the slightest clue. I have a friend who has taken many astronomy classes for his degree and he was not interested in trying to outline the altitude of the moon in one of 150 different flat earth models.

The moon is so far above the sun  (and so far away from the earth) that, no matter where you are on earth, it is basically fully lit.


(https://i.imgur.com/MPo9YsL.png)


This is a direct conflict with Tom's view that the sun and the moon are at similar altitudes during a full moon.

This is also a direct conflict with any flat earth model which claims that the moon is only a few thousand miles away from earth.



Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 11, 2018, 07:33:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/MPo9YsL.png)


Nowhere on the earth's surface of that diagram is the following satisfies: "...in order to see a full moon with 100% totality...you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on,"

It can't be done. The angle for which the moon was offset from round earth before being eclipsed was 0.52°. And that was too much for the critics of RE to say that the 100% total fullness of the moon could be seen from anywhere on round earth.

0.52°!!

There is no way to even come close to 0.52° offset alignment on a flat earth. If you put the sun and moon at 3000 miles high but at opposite edges of a 12,500-mile wide flat earth, you would still only achieve a 13-14° angle  viewing angle to the illuminated sun, and that would be during the day time with the sun directly overhead.

The point I was trying to make with this topic was that the reasoning for quibbling over whether or not we can actually see a 100% totality of fullness in round earth/moon/sun geometry is forgotten when it comes to applying that same criticism to full moons in any flat earth geometry. If it's impossible for RE, it's 25x more impossible (if that even makes sense) for FE, without invoking some ad hoc elements to skirt the impossibility...which you could just as easily do for RE.

I'd hoped this would illustrate the absurdity of this argument...
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory)

...by turning it around on FET and seeing how it was handled.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 11, 2018, 08:08:44 PM

Nowhere on the earth's surface of that diagram is the following satisfies: "...in order to see a full moon with 100% totality...you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on,"



I disagree. My diagram was very poor. Maybe this one will be more clear. There is no where on the black line in which you would see a dark part of the moon. The only parts of the moon which you would be able to see from that far away would be lit by the sun.


(https://i.imgur.com/ORDBmT6.png)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 11, 2018, 08:35:56 PM

I disagree. My diagram was very poor. Maybe this one will be more clear. There is no where on the black line in which you would see a dark part of the moon. The only parts of the moon which you would be able to see from that far away would be lit by the sun.
It wouldn't be 100%.

The only place from which you could see 100% of the moon lit by the sun in that diagram would be from directly below the sun, and that's assuming you could penetrate the light of the sun and see through the sun itself.

This is the same sort of geometric objection to being able to see 100% full moon from round earth. The alignment that that would require puts the earth in the path of the sun and causes an eclipse, so you can't see a 100% full moon. The moon has to be off axis, and even though that's only 0.52° and the moon may be 99.9% illuminated, there will still be a slight terminator due to that non-alignment.

Fine.

But that applies to flat earth too. Even in the extreme shown in your diagram, in which the moon is many times the altitude of the sun, anyone who is off axis from that alignment will be off axis from seeing the 100% full moon. The arrangement of earth-sun-moon is just in a different order, but it's the same geometric dilemma. You could probably come up with a theoretical distance for which a 32-mile wide moon can be above the sun such that you can find a spot on earth below the sun that is less than 0.52° off axis, but then that's going to be daytime for the observer. To be off axis and still on the night side of earth, and make that angle <0.52°, you're talking about a moon that's 500,000 - 600,000 miles higher than the sun.  Really?

You can't have your geometry issues with round earth full moon impossibilities and casually ad hoc them away for flat earth too.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 11, 2018, 08:58:33 PM
These diagrams baffle me. The full moon doesn't occur when the moon and the sun are both more-or-less directly above you at the same time. They happen when the moon and the sun are as far apart in the sky as they can possibly get.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 11, 2018, 09:14:14 PM
These diagrams baffle me. The full moon doesn't occur when the moon and the sun are both more-or-less directly above you at the same time. They happen when the moon and the sun are as far apart in the sky as they can possibly get.

Typical Round Earther.  ;D

I completely agree with you, but these are attempts - devil's advocate attempts, perhaps, but sincere I think -- to work out how the sun and moon could be aligned over a flat earth to create a 100% total full moon. My challenge is that it can't be done. All of the explanations and diagrams for moon phases over a flat earth would produce a far less full moon than even the 99.9% full moon on a round earth that is somehow problematic for RET according to the TFES wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory) using the same reasoning. 

Self-luminescence proposed by one (JRowe) could work, if true, because it eliminates the need for reflected light and alignment.

But that discussion went down a whole tangent about other aspects of the moon (it's shape, it's rotation).

Speaking of which, I never saw a good waning crescent moon this time around that showed "earthlight" illumination of it's portion in shadow. Now, we're in the new moon phase, so I'll have to wait and start watching Friday or so just after sunset to see if I can catch it on the waxing crescent. JRowe said he'd never seen such the phenomenon.
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2dalyz8.jpg)
Here's a photo I found taken in early February 2014 of a waxing crescent just after sunset off of San Diego's Ocean Beach. I think around 8-9PM this coming Saturday I ought to be able to see a Summer version of this if skies are clear enough.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 11, 2018, 09:45:05 PM
It wouldn't be 100%.

The only place from which you could see 100% of the moon lit by the sun in that diagram would be from directly below the sun, and that's assuming you could penetrate the light of the sun and see through the sun itself.

This is the same sort of geometric objection to being able to see 100% full moon from round earth

There are many parts of the flat earth wiki that many people disagree with. (like Tom disagreeing with the wiki on the position of the moon in relation to the sun during a full moon) This is one part of the flat earth wiki I disagree with or someone would need to help me better understand. This would be easy enough to test. You would need a sphere of some sort on the ceiling with light shining on the bottom, a plum, and a camera. Maybe draw some "dark" lines on the ball where the light stops and see how far away you can get the camera from the plum line before it sees the "dark" lines.

That circle around the plum line could be a representation of a flat plane or a viewing area on a sphere which would disprove both claims that a full moon is impossible on a _____ earth.


But that applies to flat earth too. Even in the extreme shown in your diagram, in which the moon is many times the altitude of the sun, anyone who is off axis from that alignment will be off axis from seeing the 100% full moon. The arrangement of earth-sun-moon is just in a different order, but it's the same geometric dilemma.

I agree 100%. I believe this geometric dilemma does not apply to the round earth or the flat earth.


 You could probably come up with a theoretical distance for which a 32-mile wide moon can be above the sun such that you can find a spot on earth below the sun that is less than 0.52° off axis, but then that's going to be daytime for the observer. To be off axis and still on the night side of earth, and make that angle <0.52°, you're talking about a moon that's 500,000 - 600,000 miles higher than the sun.  Really?




Yes. the altitude of the moon would have to be a MASSIVE distance above the sun. During a new moon the moon would have to be below the sun. Either the sun, moon, or both would have to make massive altitude changes in their orbits in the flat earth full moon caused by sunlight model that i'm able to visualize.

It's either that or the Moon creates its own light which is a totally different ball game that I've only ever just heard about in this thread.

It's my opinion that a full moon is possible on the round earth and one of the many flat earth models. I believe that the wiki is incorrect in it's hypothesis just like I believe that you are incorrect in yours.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 11, 2018, 09:52:54 PM
Speaking of which, I never saw a good waning crescent moon this time around that showed "earthlight" illumination of it's portion in shadow. Now, we're in the new moon phase, so I'll have to wait and start watching Friday or so just after sunset to see if I can catch it on the waxing crescent. JRowe said he'd never seen such the phenomenon.
Here's a youtube video for you. Tracking the moon during moonrise... yesterday I think? Couple days ago anyway. He seriously over-exposes the shot, and you can see the Earth-shine side of the moon really well when he's doing that.
https://youtu.be/vZHzb7nmJas?t=30
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2018, 10:13:16 PM
Quote
Yes. the altitude of the moon would have to be a MASSIVE distance above the sun. During a new moon the moon would have to be below the sun. Either the sun, moon, or both would have to make massive altitude changes in their orbits in the flat earth full moon caused by sunlight model that i'm able to visualize.

It's either that or the Moon creates its own light which is a totally different ball game that I've only ever just heard about in this thread.

It's my opinion that a full moon is possible on the round earth and one of the many flat earth models. I believe that the wiki is incorrect in it's hypothesis just like I believe that you are incorrect in yours.

Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe. A self-illuminating moon can be added as an alternative, sure. However, I am only one person, and there are not many people working on the Wiki.

The description in the Wiki uses the finite perspective ideas where the perspective lines do not extend infinitely as believed by the Ancient Greeks, and will instead meet a finite distance away, like railroad tracks appear to meet in a perspective scene. A rewrite is in order to explain it better.

See: Why we see the same side of the moon (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10013.0)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Mykrox47-9 on July 12, 2018, 01:44:27 AM
 Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2018, 01:55:51 AM
Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks

The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.

To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls

Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on July 12, 2018, 02:23:54 AM
Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks

The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.

To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls

Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.
A light perusing of the source material for those equations suggests they are derived from/using the RE Heliocentric model. But I'm not 100% on this, as the listed source is in fact more of a secondary source, that has created/condensed this information. They are under no requirement to say how the formula is derived in that page, when they list the source. While I can't say what would need to change to reflect a FE model, if what I'm reading is correct the original derivations are indeed dependent on a model.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2018, 02:50:07 AM
Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks

The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.

To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls

Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.
A light perusing of the source material for those equations suggests they are derived from/using the RE Heliocentric model. But I'm not 100% on this, as the listed source is in fact more of a secondary source, that has created/condensed this information. They are under no requirement to say how the formula is derived in that page, when they list the source. While I can't say what would need to change to reflect a FE model, if what I'm reading is correct the original derivations are indeed dependent on a model.

We can reverse engineer it. Find the columns that you think have something to do with the Round Earth model and put zeros into the fields and see what happens.

For instance:

O: Sun Rad Vector (AUs)

The default is 1.000001018.

Put 0 in those boxes and see what happens. It doesn't affect the predictions at all. I also tried 9.5 AUs. No effect. It gives the same result whether the calculator is operating under the assumption of 0 Astronomical Units or 9.5 Astronomical Units.

Looking at the equations shows that these are very simple formulas, and certainly not orbital mechanics.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2018, 04:22:17 AM
According to the NOAA website the calculator is based on a book called Astronomical Algorithms (PDF) (http://edukacja.3bird.pl/download/fizyka/astronomia-jean-meeus-astronomical-algorithms.pdf) by Jean Meeus. The following is found:

(https://i.imgur.com/AR8xUsW.png)

Funny, I was able to even delete the AU column entirely from the worksheet, and the worksheet still gave the same results, even when the year and day was changed after it was removed. In some areas of the book the author likes to pretend that he is using Heliocentric theory for his algorithms.

Reading closely, the book admits that the algorithms are just using statistical (pattern-based) methods:

(https://i.imgur.com/tT0D2E1.png)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 12, 2018, 09:27:55 AM
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.
Really? He believed the moon is self-illuminating, that it produces "cold light" and that it's translucent?!
And this is someone whose writings you take seriously and base your beliefs on? Wow...

On the first of those, this is a photo I took of the moon with a relatively cheap camera

(https://image.ibb.co/dPrt6o/moon.jpg)

Even on that you can see the moon's features (which you can see with the naked eye) and you can see some of the bigger craters and the way shadows are cast by them.
It's clear that it is being lit by a light source.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 10:03:01 AM
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.
It's clear that it is being lit by a light source.

Laser ranging and radio wave ranging confirm it to be solid, and a 49-year history of humankind sending spacecraft to and around it, also confirm it to be a solid, and a solid globe.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 10:13:05 AM
Another example of Earthshine upon the Moon, showing exactly the same features as were shown a couple of pages back;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a_gRx6o3V8

It's only three minutes, but if anyone wants the salient point, jump to 1m12s, where the camera begins tracking when the Moon is hidden by the Earth, then shows Moonrise by tracking the Moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on July 12, 2018, 12:46:00 PM
Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks

The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.

To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls

Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.
A light perusing of the source material for those equations suggests they are derived from/using the RE Heliocentric model. But I'm not 100% on this, as the listed source is in fact more of a secondary source, that has created/condensed this information. They are under no requirement to say how the formula is derived in that page, when they list the source. While I can't say what would need to change to reflect a FE model, if what I'm reading is correct the original derivations are indeed dependent on a model.

We can reverse engineer it. Find the columns that you think have something to do with the Round Earth model and put zeros into the fields and see what happens.

For instance:

O: Sun Rad Vector (AUs)

The default is 1.000001018.

Put 0 in those boxes and see what happens. It doesn't affect the predictions at all. I also tried 9.5 AUs. No effect. It gives the same result whether the calculator is operating under the assumption of 0 Astronomical Units or 9.5 Astronomical Units.

Looking at the equations shows that these are very simple formulas, and certainly not orbital mechanics.
You DO get that Sun Rad Vector is a derived value right? Not an 'input' value? Also, that formulas and equations can be simplified/derived OUT of orbital mechanics in some (according to the book many actually) cases? Did you read the forward? It suggests quite clearly that the books numbers are derived based on orbital mechanics. Just because the formulas are simple seeming, does not mean they were simple to get to.

Feel free to attempt to reverse engineer the equations though. Perhaps you can finally create a model of the FE solar system with where everything is at any given time. Assuming you feel you can trust any of the equations/information presented in this book that is. After all, have you gone around and observed every place on Earth to confirm its accuracy?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 12, 2018, 02:58:50 PM
According to the NOAA website the calculator is based on a book called Astronomical Algorithms (PDF) (http://edukacja.3bird.pl/download/fizyka/astronomia-jean-meeus-astronomical-algorithms.pdf) by Jean Meeus. Reading closely, the book admits that the algorithms are just using statistical (pattern-based) methods:

you obviously haven't read it closely.  you just saw a chapter on curve fitting and moved on.

maybe try some of the other chapters:
16. angular separation
29. equation of kepler
30. elements of planetary orbits

tbh basically all the chapters are making geometric arguments.  he shows you the equations and defines all the terms.

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 12, 2018, 04:51:03 PM
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.
Really? He believed the moon is self-illuminating, that it produces "cold light" and that it's translucent?!
And this is someone whose writings you take seriously and base your beliefs on? Wow...

On the first of those, this is a photo I took of the moon with a relatively cheap camera


Even on that you can see the moon's features (which you can see with the naked eye) and you can see some of the bigger craters and the way shadows are cast by them.
It's clear that it is being lit by a light source.

I agree that this picture makes the moon appear that it is being lit by another light source. The problem with this is that i've also seen pictures which make the moon appear that it is producing it's own light. I'm less interested in what pictures can make the moon look like it is being lit by and more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 04:58:31 PM
I agree that this picture makes the moon appear that it is being lit by another light source. The problem with this is that i've also seen pictures which make the moon appear that it is producing it's own light. I'm less interested in what pictures can make the moon look like it is being lit by and more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.

Have you looked at it yourself with an astronomical telescope?

Can I also refer you back to Reply #120, earlier today?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 12, 2018, 05:15:29 PM
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Me too!  Let's science this thing!

Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.

Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. You can even see what looks like shadows being cast behind the craters onto the surface behind them.

I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/moonthumb.jpg)

So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.

Any more we can come up with?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 12, 2018, 05:20:21 PM
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Me too!  Let's science this thing!

Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.

Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/moonthumb.jpg)

So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.

Any more we can come up with?

I agreed that based on observations made on pictures that the it appears that the moon is lit by a light source outside of the moon. I've also agree based on similar observations made on pictures that the moon appears to be generating it's own light.

One thing i struggle to understand in the self lit moon theory is how a new moon works.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 12, 2018, 05:22:58 PM
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe. A self-illuminating moon can be added as an alternative, sure. However, I am only one person, and there are not many people working on the Wiki.

The description in the Wiki uses the finite perspective ideas where the perspective lines do not extend infinitely as believed by the Ancient Greeks, and will instead meet a finite distance away, like railroad tracks appear to meet in a perspective scene. A rewrite is in order to explain it better.

See: Why we see the same side of the moon (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10013.0)

How can we get this alternate model put on the flat earth wiki? I don't like how there are many flat earth models for much of this stuff but the wiki, many times, chooses a specific subset of a specific part of one of the models. I feel like the different models (or at least the top 2-3) should be mentioned.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 05:47:08 PM
I'm less interested in what pictures can make the moon look like it is being lit by and more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theories.

Go outside on a day when you can see the sun and moon in the sky. Stand in sunlight, and hold a ball up to the Moon at arm's length. The illumination on the ball will always match that on the moon.

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7 (https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7)

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L (https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L)

Why would this happen, other than from the ball and the moon both being lit by the same sun?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 12, 2018, 06:01:23 PM
I agreed that based on observations made on pictures that the it appears that the moon is lit by a light source outside of the moon. I've also agree based on similar observations made on pictures that the moon appears to be generating it's own light.
I'm sorry I missed that. Could you tell me more about an observation that the moon appears to generate its own light? It was probably in this thread somewhere, but this thread is so wandering at this point. Please lay it out for me. We can collect it all up together.

One thing i struggle to understand in the self lit moon theory is how a new moon works.
If the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 12, 2018, 07:52:42 PM
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Me too!  Let's science this thing!

Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.

Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. You can even see what looks like shadows being cast behind the craters onto the surface behind them.
I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.

So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.

Any more we can come up with?

I can also see the outline of the part of the moon I would consider "unlit". I also observe this frequently with the naked eye. If i'm "seeing" something doesn't the act of "seeing" mean that light is coming from the object and hitting my eye. I believe that observation would support the hypothesis that the moon is both being lit from an outside source and ALSO generating it's own light which is significantly dimmer than the outside source light.

Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 12, 2018, 08:39:55 PM
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Me too!  Let's science this thing!

Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.

Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. You can even see what looks like shadows being cast behind the craters onto the surface behind them.
I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.

So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.

Any more we can come up with?

I can also see the outline of the part of the moon I would consider "unlit". I also observe this frequently with the naked eye. If i'm "seeing" something doesn't the act of "seeing" mean that light is coming from the object and hitting my eye. I believe that observation would support the hypothesis that the moon is both being lit from an outside source and ALSO generating it's own light which is significantly dimmer than the outside source light.
I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?

Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.
I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?

I guess we could say that maybe God is playing a joke on us. He wants to trick us into thinking the world is round, so he makes it look like that. It's better than the shrimp thing.

Edit... one more I just remembered... The moon isn't a physical object at all but is some kind of projection/hologram/trick of the light.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 12, 2018, 09:51:53 PM

I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?

 When I frequently see the "unlit" side of the moon How can we test the following light paths to determine which answer is most accurate:

1.  sun -> Earth -> moon -> eye
2.  moon -> eye
3.  sun -> something non earth celestial body -> moon -> eye
4. earth (in the form of light pollution) -> moon -> eye
6. Sun -> atmosphere -> moon ->eye
7. sun -> dome (in the dome FE model) ->moon -> eye
8. sun -> firmament (in the firmament FE model)-> moon -> eye
9. any combination of those listed above

Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.
I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?

I guess we could say that maybe God is playing a joke on us. He wants to trick us into thinking the world is round, so he makes it look like that. It's better than the shrimp thing.

Edit... one more I just remembered... The moon isn't a physical object at all but is some kind of projection/hologram/trick of the light.

How can we test these theories about bio-luminescence,  some sort of light generating elements, some sort of light absorbing elements, hologram hypothesis


If the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.

I read that previously in this thread but our perceptions of the rotation of the moon differed greatly. When comparing pictures of the moon during different phases my observations let me to perceive that through the moon phases we are still, more or less, looking at the same side of the moon.

JRowe's observations let him to perceive  that the moon is rotating which causes the phases of the moon.

How can we put these two conflicting hypothesis to a test?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 10:04:07 PM
JRowe's observations let him to perceive  that the moon is rotating which causes the phases of the moon.

I refer you back to Reply #78, but JRowe claims not to see the same features that everyone else does...
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 12, 2018, 10:35:46 PM

I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?

 When I frequently see the "unlit" side of the moon How can we test the following light paths to determine which answer is most accurate:

1.  sun -> Earth -> moon -> eye
2.  moon -> eye
3.  sun -> something non earth celestial body -> moon -> eye
4. earth (in the form of light pollution) -> moon -> eye
6. Sun -> atmosphere -> moon ->eye
7. sun -> dome (in the dome FE model) ->moon -> eye
8. sun -> firmament (in the firmament FE model)-> moon -> eye
9. any combination of those listed above
The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
Maybe we could estimate the brightness of the dim side and calculate what we think the albedo of the Earth is. Maybe we could do a spectral analysis to see what frequencies of light we're seeing. Maybe that could help us determine where the light is coming from.
We could accept evidence from the Chinese space agency, the Russians, or the Americans. All 3 claim to have been there and taken photos. I guess those are out though.
Super open to other ideas.

Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.
I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?

I guess we could say that maybe God is playing a joke on us. He wants to trick us into thinking the world is round, so he makes it look like that. It's better than the shrimp thing.

Edit... one more I just remembered... The moon isn't a physical object at all but is some kind of projection/hologram/trick of the light.

How can we test these theories about bio-luminescence,  some sort of light generating elements, some sort of light absorbing elements, hologram hypothesis


If the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.

I read that previously in this thread but our perceptions of the rotation of the moon differed greatly. When comparing pictures of the moon during different phases my observations let me to perceive that through the moon phases we are still, more or less, looking at the same side of the moon.

JRowe's observations let him to perceive  that the moon is rotating which causes the phases of the moon.

How can we put these two conflicting hypothesis to a test?
I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.

I see the self-illuminated idea as something like this: Perhaps the surface of the moon is some kind of outer shell that's always facing us, and the glow comes from underneath. Like the moon has a sphere inside that rotates. Half that sphere glows, and there's a translucent shell over it with craters in it. That explains the phases and how the features always face us. It doesn't explain how the craters appear to cast shadows, but that's about the best I can do.

I honestly think the projection/hologram idea is better. It's also harder to pin down and test for. The idea is that some light source (probably the sun) is hitting something (probably the dome) and we see a strange optical effect as a result. The features of the moon are the result of whatever the light is bouncing off of or refracting through, and the phase changes based on how the sun is aligned with the dome. This one is only better because it's essentially untestable. You cannot disprove it. Well you can, but it would involve bouncing a radio beam or a laser off the moon. That's something that an observatory can do (and frequently does), but I think that falls into the "we can't trust them" category.

Edit: I just remembered... the hologram does have a test for it. The hologram needs to be translucent. If we can show the unlit side of the moon blocking stars, we can disprove the hologram.

So of the testable claims: "self-illuminated" vs "lit by the sun" I don't see any way around it. Unless somebody has any other evidence, all we have points to a clear winner. I think we should move on to looking at Tom's idea of bendy light.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 13, 2018, 06:27:33 PM
The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
Maybe we could estimate the brightness of the dim side and calculate what we think the albedo of the Earth is. Maybe we could do a spectral analysis to see what frequencies of light we're seeing. Maybe that could help us determine where the light is coming from.
We could accept evidence from the Chinese space agency, the Russians, or the Americans. All 3 claim to have been there and taken photos. I guess those are out though.
Super open to other ideas.

Someone could write a letter to someone who teaches an optics class, astronomy class, astrophysics class, etc. I'm sure they could come up with a home made experiment or test we could do to attempt to determine where the light from the "unlit" side of the moon is most likely originating from.


I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.

Why did you dismiss his opinion? We tried comparing images and one some of the points he made i agreed. On most of the points he made I didn't agree. I have not dismissed his opinion. I am very curious about it.



So of the testable claims: "self-illuminated" vs "lit by the sun" I don't see any way around it. Unless somebody has any other evidence, all we have points to a clear winner. I think we should move on to looking at Tom's idea of bendy light.


There are many claims here it's not just self illuminated and lit by the sun. There were other claims too like the moon is lit by "earthshine" Now there is a claim that either the Earth is generating light (I assume either internally, man made, or through reflected light from the sun). It was my claim that the moon is lit by the sun and some other unknown light source.


Looking at a picture and disagree with what hypothesis the observations support does not equal a clear winner IMO.
1. your observation was that the moon is clearly lit from a very bright celestial body.
2. jrows observation was that the moon is clearly self lit and rotating.
3. My observation was that the moon appears to possibly be lit from a very bright celestial body and also either generating it's own light or being lit from a second light source.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 07:00:08 PM
The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
Maybe we could estimate the brightness of the dim side and calculate what we think the albedo of the Earth is. Maybe we could do a spectral analysis to see what frequencies of light we're seeing. Maybe that could help us determine where the light is coming from.
We could accept evidence from the Chinese space agency, the Russians, or the Americans. All 3 claim to have been there and taken photos. I guess those are out though.
Super open to other ideas.

Someone could write a letter to someone who teaches an optics class, astronomy class, astrophysics class, etc. I'm sure they could come up with a home made experiment or test we could do to attempt to determine where the light from the "unlit" side of the moon is most likely originating from.


I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.

Why did you dismiss his opinion? We tried comparing images and one some of the points he made i agreed. On most of the points he made I didn't agree. I have not dismissed his opinion. I am very curious about it.
Ok let's go through it again. As I understand it, JRowe argued that the features of the moon (craters, etc) are NOT all pointing at us in the same way while the lit crescent moves across that face. We took photos and compared them. It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us while the lit crescent moved over them. If there was something I missed, I'm happy to look at it again. Please present anything to contradict my conclusion. To be entirely honest, once that was shown and JRowe continued to insist that the features didn't line up, I stopped reading his argument. So it's entirely plausible that I've missed something. I'll admit fault and agree to look again if you have something.

So of the testable claims: "self-illuminated" vs "lit by the sun" I don't see any way around it. Unless somebody has any other evidence, all we have points to a clear winner. I think we should move on to looking at Tom's idea of bendy light.


There are many claims here it's not just self illuminated and lit by the sun. There were other claims too like the moon is lit by "earthshine" Now there is a claim that either the Earth is generating light (I assume either internally, man made, or through reflected light from the sun). It was my claim that the moon is lit by the sun and some other unknown light source.


Looking at a picture and disagree with what hypothesis the observations support does not equal a clear winner IMO.
1. your observation was that the moon is clearly lit from a very bright celestial body.
2. jrows observation was that the moon is clearly self lit and rotating.
3. My observation was that the moon appears to possibly be lit from a very bright celestial body and also either generating it's own light or being lit from a second light source.
I'm not trying to win any particular point. I want to remain carefully objective. I'm trying very hard to help the FE side come up with something viable.

On 1. above: The photos of the moon show what appears to be shadows behind craters. This is not disputed. (Is it?) This makes that an objective conclusion. There appear to be shadows cast by the craters. This is strong evidence for the externally lit hypothesis and is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis. Not biased and not a conclusion. This is evidence, and I don't think it's in dispute. (Although I make that mistake often, so correct me please.)

Another interesting observation is that the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too. This observation has multiple explanations. We've discussed possible ways to tease more data out of this, but so far, this one is a wash.

Finally, I noted that the moon is opaque. (Didn't show it, but we could test this if you want.) This rules out the hologram hypothesis but leaves the externally lit and self-lit hypothesis workable.
I summarize this all to say the only evidence we have here so far only matches the externally lit hypothesis. More evidence and further exploration of what we have is welcome.

On 2. above: JRowe made some claim that the moon is self-illuminated. Was any evidence put forth to back this up? As I've said, I didn't see what it was, so bring it forth, and I agree to consider it.

On 3. above: Yeah I can't see any way to rule out that both could be true. The moon could be partially self-lit and also partially externally lit. There is a thread of logic that follows this point that I'd rather not go down just yet. For now, I'd like to focus on whether or not we can rule out the externally lit hypothesis - be it in addition to self-lit or without.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2018, 07:59:13 PM
Lets consult Earth Not a Globe: Moon's Appearance (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za62.htm)

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
ASTRONOMERS have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordnance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious. This is admitted by some of those who have written on the subject, as the following quotations will show:--

     "Some persons when they look into a telescope for the first time having heard that mountains are to be seen, and discovering nothing but these (previously described) unmeaning figures, break off in disappointment, and have their faith in these things rather diminished than increased. I would advise, therefore, before the student takes even his first view of the moon through a telescope, to form as clear an idea as he can how mountains, and valleys, and caverns, situated at such a distance ought to look, and by what marks they may be recognised. Let him seize, if possible, the most favourable periods (about the time of the first quarter), and previously learn from drawings and explanations how to interpret everything he sees." 1

     "Whenever we exhibit celestial objects to inexperienced observers, it is usual to precede the view with good drawings of the objects, accompanied by an explanation of what each appearance exhibited in the telescope indicates. The novice is told that mountains and valleys can be seen in the moon by the aid of the telescope; but on looking he sees a confused mass of light and shade, and nothing which looks to him like either mountains or valleys. Had his attention been previously directed to a plain drawing of the moon, and each particular appearance interpreted to him, he would then have looked through the telescope with intelligence and satisfaction." 2

     "It is fresh in our remembrance that when showing a friend the moon at an advanced phase, 'Is this the moon?' he said, 'why I see nothing but clouds and bubbles!'--a very graphic description of a first view by an uneducated eye. None of the wonderful beauties of the landscape scenery that are so striking to the beholder, can either be recognised or appreciated under such circumstances. It is only after a careful training of the eye, that the peculiarities of the full moon can be truly apprehended." 1

Thus it is admitted by those who teach, that the moon is a spherical world, having hills and dales like the earth, that such things can only be seen in imagination.

"Nothing but unmeaning figures" are really visible, and "the students break off in disappointment, and have their faith in such things rather diminished than increased, until they previously learn from drawings and explanations how to interpret everything seen."

But who first made the drawings? Who first interpreted the "unmeaning figures" and the "confused mass of light and shade?" Who first declared them to indicate mountains and valleys, and ventured to make drawings, and give explanations and interpretations for the purpose of biassing the minds, and fixing or guiding the imaginations of subsequent observers? Whoever they were, they, at least, had "given the reins to fancy," and afterwards took upon themselves to dogmatise and teach their bold, crude, and unwarranted imaginings to succeeding investigators. And this is the kind of "evidence and reasoning" which is obtruded in our seats of learning, and spread out in the numerous works which are published for the "edification" of society.

Lets next read Shadows on the Moon (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za62.htm)

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
THERE seems to be a thorough conviction in the minds of the Newtonian theorists that many of the dark places on the moon are the shadows of mountains, and very graphic descriptions are given of the manner in which these dark places lengthen and shorten, and change their direction, as the sun is high or low, or on the right or left of certain parts. Hitherto, or in the preceding pages of this work, a spirit of antagonism has been maintained towards the Newtonian astronomers. The Zetetic process has forced a direct denial of every part of their system; but in the present instance there are certain points of agreement. There is at present no reliable evidence against the statements of the following quotation

"As the moon turns towards the sun, the tops of her mountains being the first to catch his rays, are made to stand out illuminated, like so many bright diamonds on her unilluminated black surface. And if watched with a pretty good telescope the light of the sun may be seen slowly descending the mountain sides, and at length to light up the plains and valleys below; thus making those parts which but a short time before were intensely black, now white as the snows of winter. And in those basin-like mountains (the craters) the shadows on one

p. 342

side may be seen descending far down on the opposite side, thereby revealing their vast proportions and mighty depths. As the time of the full moon approaches the shadows shorten, and when the rays of the sun fall perpendicularly on her surface (as, at full moon) they cease altogether. But now, if still watched, just the opposite appearances will take place, as the enlightened face of the moon begins to turn from the sun the lower parts are the first to lose his rays and pass into darkness, which will be observed to creep gradually up the mountain sides, and at last their tips will appear to pass out of the sun's light as the last spark of a lighted candle. The enlightened parts of the moon, however, no sooner begin to turn from the sun than the shadows of the mountains again come into view, but on the opposite side to that on which they were seen when the moon was on the increase, and gradually to increase in length so long as the parts up which they are thrown are in the light of the sun." 1

That such changes of light and shade in the varying positions of the moon, as those above described, are observed may be admitted; but that they arise from the interposition of immense mountain ranges is of necessity denied. If the Newtonians would be logically modest, the only word they could use would be that prominences exist on the moon's surface. To say that mountains and valleys and extinct volcanic craters exist, is to insult the understanding and the common sense of mankind. What possibility of proof exists that such is the character of the moon? Let them be content with that which is, alone warranted by the appearances which have been observed--that the moon's surface is irregular, having

p. 343

upon it prominences and indentations of various forms and sizes, and running in many different directions. This is the common property of all observers, and is not to be seized and perverted, or interpreted by any one class of philosophical arrogants as proving an essential part of their illogical hypothesis.

It has been demonstrated by more than sufficient matter-of-fact evidence that the moon is self-luminous, semi-transparent, admitted to be globular, observed to have prominences and irregularities upon her surface, and moves in a path always above the earth, and at a distance less than that of the sun, and, therefore, that she is a comparatively small body, and simply a satellite and light-giver to the earth. If we choose to reason at all from the facts which appear in evidence, we must necessarily conclude that the moon is a cold, semi-transparent, crystalline mass, more like a spherical ice-berg than anything else, shining with a peculiar delicate phosphorescent light of her own, but, in certain positions, her own light is overcome by the stronger and more violent light of the sun, which causes her protuberances to darken the various indentations adjoining them. This is all that any human being can possibly say without presuming on the ignorance of his fellow men, and daring to obtrude his own wild imaginings where only fact and reason and modest anxiety to know the simple truth ought to exist. This said and submitted to, we are able to illustrate and corroborate it by corresponding facts on earth. It is a well-known fact that often, when passing over the sea during a summer's night, the wake of a vessel--of a steam-ship in particular--is strongly

p. 344

luminous as far as the eye can see. It is also a fact often observed that some kinds of fish will shine with a peculiar light for hours after they are taken out of the water; and it is known that, collect this light by concave reflectors to what extent we may, it will not, to whatever degree of brilliancy we may bring it by concentration to a focus, increase the temperature, as indicated by the most delicate thermometer. This is precisely what we find as to the character of moon-light. The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon. Hence, it is repeated, that observation, fact, experiment, and consistent reasoning, all lead us to the conclusion that the moon is a comparatively small body, only a few hundred miles above the earth, that her surface is irregular, that her substance is crystalised

p. 343

and semi-transparent, and that she shines with a delicate phosphorescent light of her own, but is subject to the action of the light of the sun, which, when in certain positions, causes those peculiar manifestations of light and shade which dreamy and prepossessed philosophers have assigned to the interposition of immense and peculiar mountain structures. Surely the night of dreams is coming to an end, and the sleepers will awake ere long to open their eyes and apply their talents, not for the interpretation of what they have for so long a period been simply dreaming, but for the discovery of the real and tangible causes of the numerous beautiful phenomena constantly occurring in the world around them.

Also see Moon's Phases (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za61.htm)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2018, 08:03:56 PM
Rowbotham does have a point. Since as terrestestial investigators we don't know enough about the moon to say what it is, what shape it might be, or what it is made out of, the author makes a good point that we are assuming a lot with our most basic assumptions.

As an example, depending on skewed view, vertical perspective flipping, or other effects, a lunar pothole could easily be interpreted to be a lunar pimple.

(https://i.imgur.com/KWvwoa3.png)

Rowbotham is not expressing the above in particular in his work, but it shows the fallacy of assumption.

Since ICST brought up the idea of projections, another chapter of interest is Moon Transparent (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm).
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 08:51:58 PM
Rowbotham does have a point. Since as terrestestial investigators we don't know enough about the moon to say what it is, what shape it might be, or what it is made out of, the author makes a good point that we are assuming a lot with our most basic assumptions.

As an example, depending on skewed view, vertical perspective flipping, or other effects, a lunar pothole could easily be interpreted to be a lunar pimple.

(https://i.imgur.com/KWvwoa3.png)

Rowbotham is not expressing the above in particular in his work, but it shows the fallacy of assumption.

Since ICST brought up the idea of projections, another chapter of interest is Moon Transparent (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm).
We could almost forgive Rowbotham for making such claims. The telescopes of his day may not have been as powerful or as abundant as ours are now. Let us not make any conjectures, but look simply at the evidence before us and judge fairly what it is we see. We'll be careful to note every detail, and see if we cannot determine whether we are looking at a pimple or a crater.

I do not wish to debate an issue with you as if we were opposing lawyers. Let's try to remain objective. Here's an image to start with:

(http://s1.www.astronomycameras.com/data/blog/20070717/assets/dauvergne03_zoom.jpg)

This appears at first glance to be a sphere illuminated from the left. Or it could be a bowl lit from the right. What other shapes should we consider? I'll leave that to you to answer while I look closer to test my first 2 hypotheses.

If we look at these "craters" on the left side of the image, we see a clear pattern to them. They are ellipses that are bright on their right edges and dark on their left. As we move from right to left across the image, I see a definite trend that the dark areas of these "craters" grow longer stretching farther to the right.

Next I notice that to the right side of each "crater" past the bright patch, we start to see an extended dark patch. This looks like a shadow.

Could these be pimples? If these are pimples rather than craters, then the moon is lit from the right. That would mean the entire moon is lit from the right, in which case our first guess of its shape was backwards. It would have to be an inside-out sphere - a bowl.

So let's consider the "bowl" hypothesis. My first thought is that is inconsistent with the phases of the moon. We see the phases going all the way from new moon to full moon and back. Can a bowl do that? Isn't there going to be a point where we see the edges of the bowl? I think that's enough to reject the "bowl" hypothesis.

I'm left with the sphere hypothesis, and that makes these craters.

If you can contribute to this objectively, please jump in. What else can we deduce from images like these?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 08:59:30 PM
To continue along this thread... let me draw your attention to the top of the image. Here we see our "craters" are still ellipses, but they are oriented differently. This pattern definitely suggests a 3D sphere shape for the moon. (Either sphere or inside-out sphere/bowl).

If these are craters, they appear to be lit from the left and the front.

If these are pimples, they are lit from the right and the back.

I wonder... can we catch one of these "craters" edge-on against the blackness? If we can, we'll have our answer definitively.

Indeed, there's a big one right at the top of the image. It looks distinctly like a crater.

I'm quite confident that we can pour over several of these types of images to see what happens as the phase of the moon changes. What would you like to investigate deeper? What questions are left for you?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JHelzer on July 13, 2018, 09:22:49 PM
What about light refraction as photons hit the boundary between space and the atmolayer?  Could light refract and/or reflect off the boundary to cause moon effects?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2018, 09:24:49 PM
ICST, I didn't have any bowl-moon theory in mind, although I have heard of such theories in these Flat Earth discussions. My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.

Consider this blue-glowing pufferfish:

(https://markp427.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/imag1004.jpg)

The glowing pufferfish makes its own light, but there are erranous darkened features on its surface that come from serveral sources:

- Solid pieces on the surface
- The pufferfish is also being illuminated by a secondary lightsource
- It is also not a stretch to see that the pufferfish could create its own shadows, considering the texture of its surface.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 09:35:24 PM
ICST, I didn't have an bowl-moon theory in mind, although I have heard of such theories in these Flat Earth discussions. My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.

Consider this blue-glowing pufferfish:

(https://markp427.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/imag1004.jpg)

The glowing pufferfish makes its own light, but there are erranous darkened features on its surface that come from two sources:

- Solid pieces on the surface
- The pufferfish is also being illuminated by a secondary lightsource
- It is also not a stretch to see that the pufferfish could create its own shadows, considering the texture of its surface.

If we can move beyond what we may have read from Rowbotham, we can made deductions based on evidence. That's the scientific way and also the zetetic way. I am asking you to look at this evidence and deduce with me.

Yes we must take care not to make assumptions, but it would be foolish to dismiss all evidence out of hand simply because there is always the chance we could make a mistake. That's why it's important to coordinate with others on these things. Help me make sure I haven't made any assumptions. Do you disagree with anything in my analysis so far? Do you have anything to add to it?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2018, 09:42:42 PM
I do agree that they are probably craters. I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

My analysis is that if that puffer fish had craters of mixed material instead of spines, that those craters would probably have shadows; and that those shadows could be created by the light of the pufferfish itself.

Perhaps those craters or other elements might be enhanced a bit by other light sources around the puffer fish, or even light that travels though the puffer fish, if the puffer fish were semi-transparent, as described in the chapter Moon Transparent (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm).

I am reminded of this section in Shadows on the Moon of Earth Not a Globe:

Quote
The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 13, 2018, 09:49:29 PM
Ok let's go through it again. As I understand it, JRowe argued that the features of the moon (craters, etc) are NOT all pointing at us in the same way while the lit crescent moves across that face. We took photos and compared them. It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us while the lit crescent moved over them. If there was something I missed, I'm happy to look at it again. Please present anything to contradict my conclusion. To be entirely honest, once that was shown and JRowe continued to insist that the features didn't line up, I stopped reading his argument. So it's entirely plausible that I've missed something. I'll admit fault and agree to look again if you have something.

In your OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us.
In Jrows OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon rotated.

How can we test these two conflicting OPINIONS?




I'm not trying to win any particular point. I want to remain carefully objective. I'm trying very hard to help the FE side come up with something viable.

"It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us " Is not very objective to me. You looked at some pictures, decided that the pictures supported your hypothesis and claimed it was "incontrovertible". I believe the pictures supported your hypothesis but I need more than to look at some pictures. I need some sort of test that we can all agree on. Looking at pictures is not such a test.


On 1. above: The photos of the moon show what appears to be shadows behind craters. This is not disputed. (Is it?) This makes that an objective conclusion. There appear to be shadows cast by the craters. This is strong evidence for the externally lit hypothesis and is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis. Not biased and not a conclusion. This is evidence, and I don't think it's in dispute.

Again the claim that "shadows cast by the craters is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis" Is definitely biased. There is CLEARLY still light hitting my eye from the dark side of the moon. The same light is also hitting the camera in the pictures. You even saw it yourself here: "the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too."


Finally, I noted that the moon is opaque. (Didn't show it, but we could test this if you want.) This rules out the hologram hypothesis but leaves the externally lit and self-lit hypothesis workable.
I summarize this all to say the only evidence we have here so far only matches the externally lit hypothesis. More evidence and further exploration of what we have is welcome.

I agree that  this evidence suggest that the moon is not a hologram.

On 2. above: JRowe made some claim that the moon is self-illuminated. Was any evidence put forth to back this up? As I've said, I didn't see what it was, so bring it forth, and I agree to consider it.

to here I will quote you "the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too." I believe that is evidence that supports one of the 2 following claims:
1. The dark side of the moon is creating it's own light.
2. Light from some other source is hitting the dark side of the moon.


The moon could be partially self-lit and also partially externally lit. There is a thread of logic that follows this point that I'd rather not go down just yet. For now, I'd like to focus on whether or not we can rule out the externally lit hypothesis - be it in addition to self-lit or without.


This is a VERY objective thing to say! Thank you for at least CONSIDERING other ideas.

Based on the shadows I have two current hypothesis.
1. The moon is getting light from a bright celestial body AND generating it's own light.
2. The moon is getting light from a bright celestial body AND the moon is also getting light from somewhere else.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 09:49:40 PM
I do agree that they are probably craters. I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

My analysis is that if that puffer fish had craters of mixed material instead of spines, that those craters would probably have shadows; and that those shadows could be created by the light of the pufferfish itself, and perhaps, enhanced a bit by other light sources around the puffer fish.

I am reminded of this section in Shadows on the Moon of Earth Not a Globe:

Quote
The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon.

Without any quotes from anyone, would you mind listing out for me, all hypotheses that you feel should be considered from this point forward. I'll start us with:
1) The moon is a sphere(ish) with craters and such on it that is externally lit.
2) The moon is semi-transparent and internally lit.
edit: forgot to add 3) It could be some of each

Got it right? Are there more?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 09:54:11 PM
iampc, if you would like to help me in my quest for objectivity, how about some constructive contributions?

I am trying to fairly and objectively evaluate evidence. If you think I've made a mistake, then please point it out.

Simply coming to a conclusion does not make me biased. My conclusion is based on evidence. If you have any reason to suggest I am mistaken, point that out rather than trying to attack my character.

Edit: And I didn't even come to any conclusions yet. I said, "This is strong evidence for" and "I'll admit fault and agree to look again if you have something." and "Not biased and not a conclusion. This is evidence, and I don't think it's in dispute." etc.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JHelzer on July 13, 2018, 10:02:59 PM
Could there be a celestial light source which exists behind or to the side of the surface of the earth?
We never see it directly, only its effects.  If there is a sun and a moon above the Earth, why couldn't there be other light sources to the side or below the earth?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 13, 2018, 10:05:43 PM
I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.



I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.


The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."

When I look at the moon I see a dark area or shape produced by the wall of the crater coming between between rays of light and the surface.



The shadow is always formed on the opposite side of the light. I've never shined a flashlight on something and seen the shadow come toward my flashlight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjLIE1aoXGY

The reason why there are no shadows on one side of the moon is because that is the area in which there is nothing coming between the light and the surface which would indicate that it's external.
Also the shadows all point in the same direction which supports the idea that the light is coming from an external source. If the shadows somehow came internally they would always point away from the moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JHelzer on July 13, 2018, 10:17:56 PM
I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.
I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."
As I read Tom's quote, I believe he is expressing that dark shapes on the moon may be, but are not necessarily, shadows caused by external light.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: JHelzer on July 13, 2018, 10:19:56 PM
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasas-sdo-captures-its-100-million-image-of-the-sun.jpg)
This image of the sun is an example, like the blowfish, where light and dark shapes are caused by other phenomenon besides external light shadows.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 10:25:20 PM
I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.
I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."
As I read Tom's quote, I believe he is expressing that dark shapes on the moon may be, but are not necessarily, shadows caused by external light.

If the moon is internally lit and semi-transparent, then it is possible these are simply dark patches in the moon's surface. We can test that by checking whether they move and how they move as the moon's phase changes. We know how shadows are expected to change, and these match those patterns. We should be able to observe how the shadows move to rule out one of these possibilities.

Is there another mechanism that the self-lit idea could create such shadows?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2018, 10:44:47 PM
Quote
I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.

Lets go back to the Puffer Fish image an notice an observation:

(https://markp427.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/imag1004.jpg)
Click to enlarge

The interior light source of the Puffer Fish is off center. In fact, this off center interior light source is creating a "lunar phase" upon the puffer fish. The puffer fish is not 100% illuminated.

It is this off center lighting that can create shadows in craters.

Quick illustration:

(https://i.imgur.com/B8WHeek.png)

We see that an internal light source can cause shadows in a crater alone, without the need for an external source at all.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 10:52:36 PM
Quote
I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.

Lets go back to the Puffer Fish image an notice an observation:

(https://markp427.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/imag1004.jpg)
Click to enlarge

The interior light source of the Puffer Fish is off center. In fact, this off center interior light source is creating a "lunar phase" upon the puffer fish. The puffer fish is not 100% illuminated.

Quick illustration:

(https://i.imgur.com/B8WHeek.png)

We see that an internal light source can cause shadows in a crater alone, without the need for an external source at all.
Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 13, 2018, 11:09:08 PM
Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?
I gave that some thought.

We should be able to project backwards from the highlights we see in the craters to see where each one appears to be lit from. If the moon is internally lit, we can identify where the light appears to be coming from inside the moon.

We should likewise be able to trace the brightness of the moon's light over its surface the internal light hypothesis should produce a brightness fall-off consistent with increasing distance from the light source... although even as I type it I suspect the crescent moon is going to disprove this idea quite rapidly... What do you think about the crescent moon? Is there a way to internally light the moon and make a crescent?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 12:23:18 AM
Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?

I am explaining what I believe to be the gist of Earth Not a Globe. But that is correct. In ENAG the moon is a crystalline entity which has a moving internal light source.

If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.

(https://i.imgur.com/qkT3vQr.jpg)

There are some attempted explanations for this, but they are untenable, comparing it to how bodies tilt when you walk around them, or when they pass over you. Under the vast distances of Heliocentricism, however, the moon would only shift/tilt to perspective by 2 degrees. Ie. -- when it passes over you it would hardly tilt or shift at all.

There is also the fact that often during the phases of the moon we can see light coming from the dark part of the moon, which was touched on earlier. If we brighten up some of these scenes we can see that the moon is sending light from all parts of its darkend body (http://cs.astronomy.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/telligent-evolution-components-attachments/13-62-00-00-00-49-15-09/moon_5F00_010117.jpg). The moon is reflecting light from the night side of the earth?

Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?
I gave that some thought.

We should be able to project backwards from the highlights we see in the craters to see where each one appears to be lit from. If the moon is internally lit, we can identify where the light appears to be coming from inside the moon.

We should likewise be able to trace the brightness of the moon's light over its surface the internal light hypothesis should produce a brightness fall-off consistent with increasing distance from the light source... although even as I type it I suspect the crescent moon is going to disprove this idea quite rapidly... What do you think about the crescent moon? Is there a way to internally light the moon and make a crescent?

From looking at the shadows it seems that the light of the moon would be originating from a place off center opposite from the side of illumination.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 14, 2018, 01:05:15 AM
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.

it always does.  you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string.  hold the string taut to make it into a straight line.  now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points.  be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 01:46:58 AM
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.

it always does.  you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string.  hold the string taut to make it into a straight line.  now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points.  be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.

The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 14, 2018, 02:07:46 AM
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.

it always does.  you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string.  hold the string taut to make it into a straight line.  now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points.  be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.

The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.

Tom, this has been explained to you before, can you stop going there please? I have a whole video on this I made just for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFimWqLAJxA

I would love to avoid getting pulled off into a whole new rabbit hole. I often wonder if this could be a deliberate tactic to avoid discussing a difficult point. I'm going to leave my video there for you again and get back to the inner glow idea.

If the moon is lit from the inside, the shape of the light source must be quite interesting to explain the phases. I'm picturing a rotating half-sphere inside a sphere. That's the best I've got. If that is our hypothesis, the next step is to design tests for that. Are there ways to confirm or disprove it?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 14, 2018, 02:09:24 AM
The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.

no, i've actually done it myself a bunch of times.  it always works.  i promise you: if you try it for yourself, you will see that i'm right.

you're just not thinking of the light's path through space correctly.  hint: it's not a coincidence that the moon was on the southeast horizon at sunset. 
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 03:40:07 AM

If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.

(https://i.imgur.com/qkT3vQr.jpg)




The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.


It's the Natural Law of Perspective at work.

Here's a demonstration that's quite zetetic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI4b_TAkcoM



Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 14, 2018, 04:20:03 AM
Notice how we're now off onto the tangent of the moon terminator illusion? I am going to act like I believe this tangent is a pure and natural accident. Now it has been explained 3 more times, I'll attempt to draw the conversation back to the idea of a self-illuminated moon that could produce the phases that we see.

I propose that such a thing would have to be something like a police siren. A translucent outer shell with a rotating light source inside it. We should now attempt to find any evidence for or against this hypothesis.

As a note to iampc's idea that it could be both... sure. The question I'm personally interested in is what is the source of the moon's phases. Is it light reflected from outside or is it light transmitted from inside?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 05:36:47 AM
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .

Comparing a ball to the moon:

Dumb. There is an image of the moon pointing up away from the earth when the sun is below the horizon. Are you to assert that a ball will point up into the sky when the sun is below the horizon?

Gibbous moon tricks, et all:

The effect also happens with crescent moons, which is even more perplexing. See the video nick linked me to (https://youtu.be/Y2gTSjoEExc?t=44s) on the other forum the last time we had the conversation. A crescent moon is seen to behave the same way.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 14, 2018, 05:47:12 AM
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .
You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?

Comparing a ball to the moon:

Dumb. There is an image of the moon pointing up away from the earth when the sun is below the horizon. Are you to assert that a ball will point up into the sky when the sun is below the horizon?
My mistake... when the sun is below the horizon, you cannot do this experiment because you're in the Earth's shadow while the moon is not. Wait until the sun comes up, and you'll see the illusion is easily explained.

Gibbous moon tricks, et all:

The effect also happens with crescent moons, which is even more perplexing. See the video nick linked me to on the other forum the last time we had the conversation. A crescent moon is seen to behave the same way:   https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76072.msg2064864#msg2064864
The same explanation works for gibbous and crescent moons. Check it. Would you like me to look up the next crescent moon?... hint... it's tomorrow.

Show us something more of an argument than this. If you think we're wrong, demonstrate that. We say holding up a ball will show you where the sun is, and the rest is an illusion.

It's time to put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 06:24:41 AM
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math

 ???

I don't understand "the moon will only shift by two degrees..." 

Shift?


(http://oi64.tinypic.com/8vrf43.jpg)

Same jet (Blue Angel) flying straight and level in a flyby. Why's his nose up in the 1st pic as he approaches and nose down in the 2nd pic as he departs?


Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 08:15:46 AM
Rowbotham does have a point. Since as terrestestial investigators we don't know enough about the moon to say what it is, what shape it might be, or what it is made out of, the author makes a good point that we are assuming a lot with our most basic assumptions.

You may well be on terra firma, but a host of others have travelled either to the Moon or around it. Unmanned craft have circled around it, and some are still doing so.

So we do know what shape it is, and from examination of geological samples, we have a good idea of what it's made of.

Do you disbelieve that people have actually done this? If so, why?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 08:19:31 AM
My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.

Hundreds upon thousands of astronomers have studied the Moon. You aren't really suggesting they were all suffering from expectation bias, are you?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 08:28:56 AM
In your OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us.
In Jrows OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon rotated.
How can we test these two conflicting OPINIONS?

By looking at the features, and identifying them on repeated observations. From the first set of photos JRowe said he couldn't see the correlation between features in two pictures. I cited a different pair of pictures and labelled the features for him. He seems to have gone a bit quiet after that, and retreated to other threads.

"It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us " Is not very objective to me. You looked at some pictures, decided that the pictures supported your hypothesis and claimed it was "incontrovertible". I believe the pictures supported your hypothesis but I need more than to look at some pictures. I need some sort of test that we can all agree on. Looking at pictures is not such a test.

You do realise you can look at the Moon yourself, with your own astronomical telescope, don't you? You don't have to look at pictures.


Again the claim that "shadows cast by the craters is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis" Is definitely biased. There is CLEARLY still light hitting my eye from the dark side of the moon. The same light is also hitting the camera in the pictures. You even saw it yourself here: "the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too."

Yes, but the Earthshine hitting the dark side isn't sufficient to generate clear shadows, as it's far dimmer than sunlight.


I agree that  this evidence suggest that the moon is not a hologram.

Good. I'm sure those who have flown spacecraft around and onto the Moon agree with you. How's that for a test?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 08:33:04 AM
Could there be a celestial light source which exists behind or to the side of the surface of the earth?
We never see it directly, only its effects.  If there is a sun and a moon above the Earth, why couldn't there be other light sources to the side or below the earth?

..because the presence of such would cause multiple shadows on the Moon. Why wouldn't we see this alt source at night?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 08:34:51 AM
This image of the sun is an example, like the blowfish, where light and dark shapes are caused by other phenomenon besides external light shadows.

Yes, but 'dark shapes' is all they are, with no directional consistency. They do not look like shadows.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 08:41:41 AM
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.

IMG (Tom, there's a REASON your image is captioned with the word ILLUSION)

There are some attempted explanations for this, but they are untenable ...

No, they are not

The moon is reflecting light from the night side of the earth?

No, the day side of the Earth is reflecting the light. You're observing, or the photographer is photographing, from the night side. 

Look at this simplistic diagram. Can you draw a straight line between the day side of the Earth and the 'night' side of the Moon at any of the Moon phases here? I can.

(http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/images/pictures/space/moonphases.jpg)

Here's how your photographer can be on the night side of Earth, looking at an almost Full Moon, with the moon illuminated by a sun below his horizon (not to scale, of course). The sun is to the left, obviously...

(https://i.imgur.com/wi77lDC.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 08:47:15 AM
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.

it always does.  you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string.  hold the string taut to make it into a straight line.  now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points.  be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.

The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

...and the Sun is ... out in space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

Show us how the line is "pointing upwards" based on that photo. We can't see the horizon off to the right, so how can you show the angle of the illumination points above it?

You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.

Repeating what I've done more than once to show Moon and hand-held baseball are both illuminated by the Sun.

Baseball Moon - https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7

Baseball Moon 2 -  https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 12:31:41 PM
I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 12:40:30 PM
If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

You need to define your horizontals, though.  What IS the horizontal to which you refer?

One hour after sunset, the photographer is 360/24 = 15 degrees beyond the Earth terminator line, at an unspecified latitude, with the camera inclined upward by 45 degrees. What does the horizontal of the camera frame then represent, other than itself?

It's certainly not comparable to the line of illumination connecting the Moon and Sun. That's a different 'horizontal'. The camera frame is inclined on one axis by some 15 degrees relative to this, and by unspecified angles in the other axes.

Bottom line is that we could model this in 3D, but we need to know where the photo was taken from, i.e. the latitude of the photographer. We know his 'longitude', that's 15 degrees beyond the terminator, but we don't know his latitude. It would also help to know the date of the photo, to determine how far off the sun/earth plane the moon was at the time.

You're regarding the line connecting moon and sun as being 'above the horizontal', but all that horizontal represents is a line in the camera frame, non-parallel to any of the lines connecting sun, moon and earth. 
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 14, 2018, 01:13:58 PM
Do the math.

no math required.  you only need a piece of string and maybe 20 seconds of your time.  if you would stop being a rationalist for a moment and actually do an experiment yourself, you'd see that the string points to the sun's location, even if the sun is below the horizon.

it seems like you're perfectly willing to depart from an empiricist mindset the moment it's inconvenient to your narrative.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on July 14, 2018, 03:35:54 PM
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.

Really?

So, if the light from the sun can reach the moon laterally, what prevents it from lighting the entire surface of your flat earth?

Can you draw  for us, or present to us, a diagram that shows the emission of light from the sun that is consistent with producing a 50% division of night and day on your flat earth, while at the same time fully illuminating the moon to viewer in the 'night' region?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 07:29:25 PM
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .
You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?

As a body increases its distance from you the less it will turn, shift, or angle itself to perspective. The examples of corners of rooms tilting, planes tilting, rubix cubes tilting as they are seen over the observer are all irrelevant, since the distance to the moon as it passes over you in RET is at a much greater distance, and generally stays the same distance from you at all times. Examples of perspective as it occurs to an observer or a camera when those bodies are close to the camera is irrelevant and lacking.

You did the math on how much the moon would tilt or change position due to perspective in RET before in previous threads. I saw you. Don't play dumb. You know that the moon barely shifts or turns to perspective.

DO THE MATH

In your trolling video against me, in the examples bobby is referencing, and many other explanations, you and others are referencing small scale or close up perspective. I don't really give a flip about those explanations. They only showcase a handicap in logic and critical thinking, as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 07:40:14 PM
Look at this simplistic diagram. Can you draw a straight line between the day side of the Earth and the 'night' side of the Moon at any of the Moon phases here? I can.

http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/images/pictures/space/moonphases.jpg (http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/images/pictures/space/moonphases.jpg)

Here's how your photographer can be on the night side of Earth, looking at an almost Full Moon, with the moon illuminated by a sun below his horizon (not to scale, of course). The sun is to the left, obviously...

(https://i.imgur.com/wi77lDC.jpg)

And if you draw in the horizon line for the observer the moon points into the observer's horizon.

(https://i.imgur.com/YR9cWkE.png)

Do the math.

no math required.  you only need a piece of string and maybe 20 seconds of your time.  if you would stop being a rationalist for a moment and actually do an experiment yourself, you'd see that the string points to the sun's location, even if the sun is below the horizon.

it seems like you're perfectly willing to depart from an empiricist mindset the moment it's inconvenient to your narrative.

How does the string point to the direction of the sun if the sun is below the horizon and the moon is pointing upwards into the sky?

Are you telling us that any and all angles that are pointing upwards are eventually going to come back and meet the earth's horizon rather traveling out into space?  ::)

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 07:46:30 PM
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .
You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?

As a body increases its distance from you the less it will turn to perspective. The examples of corners of rooms tilting, planes tilting, rubix cubes tilting as they are seen over the observer are all irrelevant, since the distance to the moon as it passes over you in RET is at a much greater distance, and generally stays the same distance from you at all times.

You did the math on how much the moon would tilt or change position due to perspective in RET before in previous threads. I saw you. Don't play dumb. You know that the moon barely shifts or turns to perspective.

DO THE MATH

In your trolling video against me, in the examples bobby is referencing, and many other explanations, you and others are referencing SMALL SCALE OR CLOSE UP perspective. I don't really give a flip about those explanations. They only showcase a handicap in logic, as far as I am concerned.

Really? Let's see you do the math. I never see you do it. You propose these thought experiment analogies all the time without any math to back them up. And they are often faulty analogical models. But you don't care. You call it zetetic.

Now, here are actual (not imaginary) demonstrations to model the phenomenon and you want us to do the math.  Fine. Show us how it's done.

Edit:

Here's an upcoming scenario if you don't have the numbers for that photo.

Attached is an image approximating what the moon will look like from San Francisco on July 19th at 9PM, about 32 minutes after sunset. The sun will have set on the 298° azimuth and at 9PM will be about 6° below the horizon (we ARE talking round earth here) on a 302° bearing line when the half moon is looking like this to a San Francisco viewer.

The moon will bear 212° and be 39° above the horizon.

Now, use "round earth theory" numbers for distances and show me how to "do the math."
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 08:25:45 PM
I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

Yes. Read that, and notice the following.

The number of times the author tries to explain the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room or a building when you travel past it: numerous

The number of times the author actually uses the distance to the moon in any of her calculations: none

The number of times the author remarks how mysterious and hard to explain the issue is: several

Really? Let's see you do the math. I never see you do it. You propose these thought experiment analogies all the time without any math to back them up.

It is easy to see how perspective plays very little part in the Round Earth system.

In RET the distance to the moon is 238,900 miles.

Imagining that distance as a radius of a circle, with observers positioned all around it, we can get the circumference of that circle with C=2*pi*R.

The circumference is 1501052.96989 miles

We divide it by 360 to get 4169.59158301 miles per degree

The diameter of the earth is 7,917.5 miles

7,917.5 / 4169.59158301 = a ratio of 1.89, or a little less than 2 degrees.

If we place the earth on the circumference we created above, with two observers standing on direct opposite sides of the earth, about 7917.5 miles apart, looking at the moon on their horizon should see a difference in shift of less than 2 degrees. This should also mean that the moon will shift back and fourth very minimally as it passes over the head of the observer.

The shift in perspective, under the Round Earth Theory, should be very slight.

Factoring in the idea that the moon does not always pass directly overhead does not help either. The shift in perspective should be very slight whether you were at the North Pole of a Round Earth or at the equator. Under the Round Earth model the moon is very far away.

The concept that perspective would play hardly any part in the observation of the moon under the Round Earth system is straight forward and apparent. Tilting, shifting, all becomes less and less with greater distances. Lets see your math on these dramatic perspective shifts or tilts. Go.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 14, 2018, 09:42:02 PM
How does the string point to the direction of the sun if the sun is below the horizon and the moon is pointing upwards into the sky?

Are you telling us that any and all angles that are pointing upwards are eventually going to come back and meet the earth's horizon rather traveling out into space?  ::)

instead of imaging the experiment in your head, just do it.  it takes 20 seconds and a piece of string.  if you do the experiment, then you will see exactly why you're confused.

you're just thinking of the space as a 2d projection.  it's a 3d space.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 09:46:10 PM
How does the string point to the direction of the sun if the sun is below the horizon and the moon is pointing upwards into the sky?

Are you telling us that any and all angles that are pointing upwards are eventually going to come back and meet the earth's horizon rather traveling out into space?  ::)

instead of imaging the experiment in your head, just do it.  it takes 20 seconds and a piece of string.  if you do the experiment, then you will see exactly why you're confused.

you're just thinking of the space as a 2d projection.  it's a 3d space.

(https://i.imgur.com/jcPUnBj.png)

Are you asserting that if Dexter fires his laser cannon, that the laser beam will leave the weapon and eventually intersect the horizon of the earth?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 14, 2018, 09:58:41 PM
you're just thinking of the space as a 2d projection.  it's a 3d space.

(https://i.imgur.com/jcPUnBj.png)

Are you asserting that if Dexter fires his laser cannon, that the laser beam will leave the weapon and eventually intersect the horizon of the earth?

you're kinda just proving my point here. 

also i'm genuinely stunned that you of all people would use a carton as evidence of your claims.  instead of arguing about cartoons, why not just do the experiment?  i don't understand your reluctance.  it costs virtually no time or money.  as an empiricist, what reason could you possibly have not to see for yourself?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 10:12:13 PM
The moon disappears when it gets too close to the sun. The moon is only seen in the day when the sun is across from it at nearly the maximum distance it can be from it in the opposite sky; and when it gets too high, it disappears. If you imagine straight lines curving on a dome of the sky, of course there is going to be an area where anything pointing upwards can seem to arc to a place across to the opposite sky, and into the opposite horizon.

You can imagine lines on the above Dexter cartoon still that arcs around to the opposite horizon and intersects it. But will a laser that points upwards really hit the opposite horizon when fired? No. You are imagining silly celestial sphere nonsense.

You are imaging the line bending on a dome to hit something in the opposite sky and the curve of that bend is up to your own imagination. If the laser weapon in the above image were a real object, you could take a string and connect the tip of that laser weapon in the above image to almost anything in the opposite sky.

None of the above are explanatory. Making a connection that this is an "explanation" for what is happening, in any way, is fallacious.

Do the math under the Round Earth model. Perspective cannot cause things to shift or tilt to the degree it needs to. Don't post malarkey about strings and corners of the ceilings and about how you drove past a building and saw that it turned or tilted in angle.

DO THE MATH
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: inquisitive on July 14, 2018, 10:30:27 PM
The moon disappears when it gets too close to the sun. The moon is only seen in the day when the sun is across from it at nearly the maximum distance it can be from it in the opposite sky; and when it gets too high, it disappears. If you imagine straight lines curving on a dome of the skymof course there is going to be an area where anything pointing upwards can seem to arc to a place across to the opposite sky, and into the opposite horizon.

You can imagine lines on the above Dexter cartoon still that arcs around to the opposite horizon and intersects it. But will a laser that points upwards really hit the opposite horizon when fired? No. You are imagining silly celestial sphere nonsense.

You are imaging the line bending on a dome to hit something in the opposite sky and the curve of that bend is up to your own imagination. If the laser weapon in the above image were a real object, you could take a string and connect the tip of that laser weapon in the above image to almost anything in the opposite sky.

None of the above are explanatory. Making a connection that this is an "explanation" for what is happening, in any way, is fallacious.

Do the math under the Round Earth model. Perspective cannot cause things to shift or tilt to the degree it needs to. Don't post malarkey about strings and corners of the ceilings and about how you drove past a building and saw that it turned or tilted in angle.

DO THE MATH
The path of the earth, moon and sun are documented and proven.  Look it up.  And perspecive does not come into the discussion, even you version of it.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 10:36:27 PM
And if you draw in the horizon line for the observer the moon points into the observer's horizon.

(https://i.imgur.com/YR9cWkE.png)

That's not a horizon for the photographer. That's a tangent to the surface of the Earth.

Here's where the photographer's horizon line will be (not to scale, obviously)

(https://i.imgur.com/o5sFEJp.jpg)

Since his camera is looking up 45 degrees toward the Moon, he's looking above the horizon at that side, along the shortest side of the green triangle.

Since the purple circle of his horizon is completely in the night side of Earth, the sun is below his horizon. The illumination of the Moon, along the longest side of the green triangle, doesn't care where he is, as there's a direct line between the Moon and Sun (even though the sun is below the photographer's horizon.

You need to think in 3D, not 2D.   
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 10:43:29 PM

DO THE MATH

Do it right.

You're in the wrong axis, one that has nothing to do with the sun.

Here's what you're doing. Here's my 4.5"D moon placed 40' away:

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zl94z6.jpg)

And here it is again with the camera moved laterally 15":

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zl94z6.jpg)

This is scaled to the actual distances and is the tiny "shift" you are calculating.

But that's rotation of the moon's lateral planes about either the x-axis (if observers are split E/W) or the y-axis (if observers are split N/S).

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/n6lgg.jpg)

What you've calculated is why you don't see "around" the moon given RE distances and sizes of moon and earth. But that's an earth/moon relationship only and has nothing to do with the rotation about the z-axis, which is what the picture of the sun's light on the moon not pointing to the sun is all about.

Here's THAT rotation:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/1zdxlzp.jpg)

So, back to the drawing board, Tom. Do the math for that rotation, and you'll have to work in not just the distances of the sun to the earth and moon, but the difference in perspective angles to each from earth.

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 10:49:36 PM
The path of the earth, moon and sun are documented and proven.  Look it up.  And perspecive does not come into the discussion, even you version of it.
[/quote]Perspective very much does come into the discussion in order to explain why the light/shadow of the sun doesn't appear to be pointing straight at the sun from the perspective of earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc

Ignore what Tom posted. He's working the wrong problem.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 10:52:49 PM
And if you draw in the horizon line for the observer the moon points into the observer's horizon.

https://i.imgur.com/YR9cWkE.png (https://i.imgur.com/YR9cWkE.png)

That's not a horizon for the photographer. That's a tangent to the surface of the Earth.

Here's where the photographer's horizon line will be (not to scale, obviously)

https://i.imgur.com/o5sFEJp.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/o5sFEJp.jpg)

Since his camera is looking up 45 degrees toward the Moon, he's looking above the horizon at that side, along the shortest side of the green triangle.

Since the purple circle of his horizon is completely in the night side of Earth, the sun is below his horizon. The illumination of the Moon, along the longest side of the green triangle, doesn't care where he is, as there's a direct line between the Moon and Sun (even though the sun is below the photographer's horizon.

You need to think in 3D, not 2D.

The phase of the moon is still pointing into the horizon, Tumeni.


DO THE MATH

Do it right.

You're in the wrong axis, one that has nothing to do with the sun.

Here's what you're doing. Here's my 4.5"D moon placed 40' away:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zl94z6.jpg

And here it is again with the camera moved laterally 15":

http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zl94z6.jpg

That's right. The perspective shift with distant bodies would be very small. If that moon were Rubix Cube suspended 1 foot above your head the shift would be far greater when you walk away by 15 feet.

Quote
But that's rotation of the moon's lateral planes about either the x-axis (if observers are split E/W) or the y-axis (if observers are split N/S).

http://oi63.tinypic.com/n6lgg.jpg

What you've calculated is why you don't see "around" the moon given RE distances and sizes of moon and earth. But that's an earth/moon relationship only and has nothing to do with the rotation about the z-axis, which is what the picture of the sun's light on the moon not pointing to the sun is all about.

The moon isn't going to shift by less than two degrees, but tilt by 45 degrees. Don't be that person.

DO THE MATH

SHOW HOW THESE VAST PERSPECTIVE TILT CHANGES CAN OCCUR IN RET
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 10:55:17 PM
Perspective very much does come into the discussion in order to explain why the light/shadow of the sun doesn't appear to be pointing straight at the sun from the perspective of earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc)

Ignore what Tom posted. He's working the wrong problem.

The author of that video is, once again, as in the numerous explanations we have seen, comparing close range perspective tilting to a grand Round Earth system with bodies that are very far away.

DO THE MATH
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 10:56:31 PM
If you look at my diagram above, which is a top-down view, and imagine it side-on, it looks like this

(https://i.imgur.com/YCbOLtb.jpg)

The Moon's orbit is now a line across the screen, and it would appear to move from side to side in this field of view, in front of and behind the Earth (white line). Sun is still to the left. Photographer cannot see sun beyond horizon, but moon is above his horizon.

Illumination from sun to moon is independent of photographer's position 
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 14, 2018, 10:56:46 PM
Tom, I thought you were an "empiricist". Just pick a place, a date, and a time. Take photos or videos of the sun and moon. Show us what you get. The way you prove this empirically is to hold up a ball like we said. Do this when the sun is still hitting you. Do this every 15 minutes while the sun is setting. Then continue to take your photos/videos of the moon (without the ball) after the sun sets.

When the sun was up, your ball will have shown you what the angle towards the sun looks like at that vantage point. Notice how that angle changes during those 15 minute intervals. Once the sun is down and you can no longer use the ball, extrapolate the pattern of angles to show that the moon keeps rotating at a consistent rate with its lit side still pointing towards the sun - even though you can no longer see the sun.

That's how empiricists do this. This is your chance.

I'll do you even better. Pick the place, the date, and the time when you plan to do this in advance. We'll run the actual math and tell you the angle of the light, and THEN you go measure it. Take photos and show just how "untenable" our predictions are.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 10:58:39 PM
SHOW HOW THESE VAST PERSPECTIVE TILT CHANGES CAN OCCUR IN RET

WHAT vast changes?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 14, 2018, 10:59:40 PM
The phase of the moon is still pointing into the horizon, Tumeni.

In my diagram? No, I disagree
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 11:00:26 PM

The moon isn't going to shift by less than two degrees, but tilt by 45 degrees. Don't be that person.

DO THE MATH

SHOW HOW THESE VAST PERSPECTIVE TILT CHANGES CAN OCCUR IN RET


"SHOUT" all you want, but until you can grasp that you're working in the wrong axes, you're just going to remain frustrated, thinking that you're right and we're not getting it.

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2ed8ok6.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
You can't explain this mathematically, and we have not seen a mathematical analysis by an astronomer using the distances and sizes in RET. This is for the simple fact that this matter is unexpainable.

The perspective tilting explanation is fiction. If there was a real explanation, we would have a real document to point to -- not a stupid youtube video of some close range perspective tilting effects.

This needs to be described using the real properties of the Round Earth System. I thought it was supposed to predict everything? Show it then. Show that the Round Earth System can cause this sort of tilting.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: HorstFue on July 14, 2018, 11:17:32 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/qkT3vQr.jpg)
That's a really nice one. For me it shows, we're on a sphere.
The illusion is, that not the moon is tilted, it's the observer! And together with the observer the horizon is tilted.
If you were looking west or east on some moderate latitude on spherical earth, the horizon is not parallel to the equatorial plane, it's tilted, on first approximation by an angle of 90° - latobserver .
(no taking into account of the inclination of earth axis)
If you wait some hours, when the moon is in the south, the moon will appear upright. That's because the horizon in south (or north) is parallel to equatorial plane.
If this image would have been taken with an "Equatorial mount" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_mount (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_mount) for the camera, the moon would have appeared upright, with your arrow pointing parallel to the equatorial plane, where it would 'find' the Sun.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 14, 2018, 11:26:09 PM
You did the math on how much the moon would tilt or change position due to perspective in RET before in previous threads. I saw you. Don't play dumb. You know that the moon barely shifts or turns to perspective.

DO THE MATH

In your trolling video against me, in the examples bobby is referencing, and many other explanations, you and others are referencing small scale or close up perspective. I don't really give a flip about those explanations. They only showcase a handicap in logic and critical thinking, as far as I am concerned.

My video was a bit trollish. I should apologize. I was irritated when I discovered that you knew full-well what the moon terminator illusion was and how it worked, but you chose to act as if you didn't. I was a bit direct in my criticism of you. Normally, I go out of my way to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

So if you would be so big as to accept my apology, I'd suggest you watch the parts of the video where I show the simulation, you'll see that it is not "up-close". Nowhere in that simulation did I state what the scale was. If we agree that the scale is such that the moon was 30 feet from the viewer, you get the picture I showed. Instead we could say the moon was 30 miles from the viewer, the picture doesn't change - I just have a moon that's way too big. Its lighting won't change. Now say the moon was 300,000 miles from the viewer. Again I've got my moon sized wrong now, but the lighting angles don't change with distance.

Oh yes. I can do the math. You know that I can. And since you know and trust that I can do the math, perhaps you should trust me when I tell you, "Tom, you're doing the math wrong." If you'd listen, we can explain your mistakes and show the correct math.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 14, 2018, 11:27:11 PM
You can't explain this mathematically, and we have not seen a mathematical analysis by an astronomer using the distances and sizes in RET.

there's no math involved.  you're saying that a line isn't straight.  i'm saying it is.  you can use a line you know is straight (taut string) to demonstrate the fact of the matter for yourself.

stop arguing with thought experiments and cartoons.  you're better than that.  be an empiricist.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 11:44:02 PM
You can't explain this mathematically, and we have not seen a mathematical analysis by an astronomer using the distances and sizes in RET. This is for the simple fact that this matter is unexpainable.
You demanded we do the math. Now you're saying it can't be explained mathematically?

The moon rotates in the z-axis with respect to earth. This is not the "flipping" of the moon that is explained in your wiki. This is not the 2° "shift" you argued, which is in the x- or y- axes. The moon "rolls" or "tilts" like the dial on a stove. And it's not constant or linear. It's fast sometimes. Slow other times. The way the sun illuminates the moon in this half-moon "not aligned" illusion you've introduced is related to that. 

You're objection that the moon doesn't "shift" more than 2° is addressing the wrong "shift." The direction of the sun's shine pattern on the moon is a function of the positions (angle + distance) of the moon AND the sun as viewed from earth. You've not done any math that incorporates the sun nor the angles involved. And when confronted with that, you revert to saying it can't be explained mathematically.


The perspective tilting explanation is fiction. If there was a real explanation, we would have a real document to point to -- not a stupid youtube video of some close range perspective tilting effects.


I know. I've looked all over for scholarly-type resources discussing this, but frankly, it's probably of no interest to astronomers who aren't concerned with defending whether or not the earth is a globe, spins, orbits the sun and is orbited by a moon.

This needs to be described using the real properties of the Round Earth System. I thought it was supposed to predict everything? Show it then. Show that the Round Earth System can cause this sort of tilting.
Okay. Challenge accepted.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 14, 2018, 11:51:41 PM
That's a really nice one. For me it shows, we're on a sphere.

I agree, and we've been having a long discussion about this observable "rolling" phenomenon of the moon on another thread that got booted to the Lounge. It's explicable in round earth. So far, no plausible explanation is provided for flat earth topography outside of hypothetical "electromagnetic accelerator" effect.

I think this terminator illusion is related, and instead of refuting that the sun illuminates the moon but that it does in a way that affirms we see it from a spherical earth.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2018, 12:03:56 AM
Per the "you are working in the wrong axis" thing:

"SHOUT" all you want, but until you can grasp that you're working in the wrong axes, you're just going to remain frustrated, thinking that you're right and we're not getting it.

http://oi64.tinypic.com/2ed8ok6.jpg

As I stated in the assessment earlier, whether we imagine that the moon is traveling east to west, or north to south, or both, around the observer the perspective and any changes in its face and orientation is still going to be minimal.

Perspective isn't going to affect bodies at large distances with any large effect unless we also scale our observation points by a large distance. The diameter of the earth is tiny compared to the distance between the earth and the moon in RET, and the idea that we should be able to see vast changes in the angle of bodies is something that will need to be demonstrated.

Astronomers do care about this sort of thing. Over the years every time this topic comes up and the audience provides quotes from astronomical texts, we see that astronomers don't really know why, have trouble explaining it, and mumble something vague about celestial spheres.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 15, 2018, 12:54:08 AM
Astronomers do care about this sort of thing. Over the years every time this topic comes up and the audience provides quotes from astronomical texts, we see that astronomers don't really know why, have trouble explaining it, and mumble something vague about celestial spheres.

there isn't anything to explain.  you're just plain wrong that there's a problem to begin with.

(https://i.imgur.com/AQpzxwI.png)

you're saying that the line i've drawn won't point at the sun.  i'm telling you that it absolutely does, and you can demonstrate that it does by making your own straight line with a piece of string.  if you align one end of your string to be like the perpendicular line i've drawn on this moon, then you will find that the other end points at the sun.

you don't have to do any math.  you say this line doesn't point at the sun.  i say it does.  don't take my word for it.  see for yourself.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2018, 01:25:57 AM
Astronomers do care about this sort of thing. Over the years every time this topic comes up and the audience provides quotes from astronomical texts, we see that astronomers don't really know why, have trouble explaining it, and mumble something vague about celestial spheres.

there isn't anything to explain.  you're just plain wrong that there's a problem to begin with.

https://i.imgur.com/AQpzxwI.png

you're saying that the line i've drawn won't point at the sun.  i'm telling you that it absolutely does, and you can demonstrate that it does by making your own straight line with a piece of string.  if you align one end of your string to be like the perpendicular line i've drawn on this moon, then you will find that the other end points at the sun.

you don't have to do any math.  you say this line doesn't point at the sun.  i say it does.  don't take my word for it.  see for yourself.

As I said, the only time the moon and sun is seen in the sky is when they are on opposite sides of the sky. Otherwise, when the moon gets too close to the sun it disappears.

A laser cannon pointed upwards into the sky is going to fire its laser beam into outer space. Its not going to wrap around to the horizon. The only way to get the laser beam to go to the opposite horizon is if you imagine it curving on the dome of the sky.

Your "string" experiment is bunk and lacking in explanatory power. You can find something pointing upwards and put a string to it and make any number of paths to the opposite horizon.

Find a panorama of the moon pointing into the sky above the sun and draw your string on it.

(https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/art%3A10.3758%2Fs13414-014-0767-3/MediaObjects/13414_2014_767_Fig3_HTML.gif)

What you are trying to do is say that the sky is a dome and that if you make vertical triangles along the top of the image, cut it out with scissors, and paste it together in a domish way that there is a way to make (force) the moon to point at the sun. By manipulating it in this manner you can also force the moon to point at any number of objects on that opposite horizon.

This is not coherent. It is the "celestial sphere" explanation given by some astronomers; but this explanation falls flat with the slightest breeze.

- The sun and moon are not painted on a celestial sphere around the earth where straight lines become curved.
- The sun and moon exist in regular geometric space where an arrow will always point to the object it is pointing at, not in an entirely different direction.

There will need to be a more coherent explanation than this celestial sphere theory. In RET the observers aren't in a planetarium with lines projected on a screen above them that turn into curves. The observers are in regular space.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 15, 2018, 01:49:00 AM
Tom, you've inspired me. I'll do the math for you. I'll make you a video (100% troll free this time). But in return for all this effort, I'd like something from you. I'd like you to agree in advance that IF I can do the math you ask for, and IF the math shows that the RE model explains this illusion, you will publicly concede the point. You don't have to agree that the world is round, just admit that you made a mistake and the moon terminator illusion is perfectly explained by the standard heliocentric model.

What do you say? Sound fair enough?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2018, 03:34:01 AM
If the distances/attributes of the Round Earth Model can explain the moon tilt illusion for gibbous and crescent moons, I have absolutely no problem admitting that. As I have seen, it cannot. It cannot explain it, and this is why the literature is so vague about the matter.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 15, 2018, 04:50:32 AM
If the distances/attributes of the Round Earth Model can explain the moon tilt illusion for gibbous and crescent moons, I have absolutely no problem admitting that. As I have seen, it cannot. It cannot explain it, and this is why the literature is so vague about the matter.
I don't know what you mean about "vague literature," but I'll get started on that. Will take some time... got work this weekend and family stuff.

Perhaps in the meantime, everyone might want to discuss the "police siren" hypothesis where the moon is internally lit by a rotating half-sphere? It sounds crazy and all, but could we actually come up with any sort of serious analysis of it?

Also, I thunk a thought. On the question of "earthshine" reflecting off of the unlit side of the moon... It seems likely that the amount of light the unlit side receives from the Earth would vary according to the Earth's "phase" as seen from the moon. We should be able to predict the Earth's phase and possibly we could measure the brightness of the unlit side of the moon. We could see if those correlate with each other at all. That would be a neat experiment and could provide valuable evidence.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on July 15, 2018, 04:55:30 AM
If the distances/attributes of the Round Earth Model can explain the moon tilt illusion for gibbous and crescent moons, I have absolutely no problem admitting that. As I have seen, it cannot. It cannot explain it, and this is why the literature is so vague about the matter.

the literature is silent on this problem because you are simply manufacturing the problem.  why would there be literature on a nonexistent problem?

As I said, the only time the moon and sun is seen in the sky is when they are on opposite sides of the sky. Otherwise, when the moon gets too close to the sun it disappears.

absurdly incorrect.  do a google search for "daytime moon."  you'll find many examples of crescent and gibbous moons.  how have you never seen a daytime crescent?

Find a panorama of the moon pointing into the sky above the sun and draw your string on it.

lol.  that you think this is a correct procedure demonstrates exactly how confused you are.  hint: straight lines in 3d space often stop being straight when you project them onto a 2d surface.  this is pretty much exactly the thing that i've been trying to tell you the whole time.  you're thinking of everything like an image.
(https://i.imgur.com/W90ZINr.jpg?1)

What you are trying to do is say that the sky is a dome and that if you make vertical triangles along the top of the image, cut it out with scissors, and paste it together in a domish way that there is a way to make (force) the moon to point at the sun. By manipulating it in this manner you can also force the moon to point at any number of objects on that opposite horizon.

This is not coherent. It is the "celestial sphere" explanation given by some astronomers; but this explanation falls flat with the slightest breeze.

- The sun and moon are not painted on a celestial sphere around the earth where straight lines become curved.
- The sun and moon exist in regular geometric space where an arrow will always point to the object it is pointing at, not in an entirely different direction.

There will need to be a more coherent explanation than this celestial sphere theory. In RET the observers aren't in a planetarium with lines projected on a screen above them that turn into curves. The observers are in regular space.

what?  i've not said anything about triangles or celestial domes or anything else of the sort.

your argument is that the line perpendicular to the moon's terminator does not intersect the sun.  my argument is super simple: yes it does.  literally all you have to do demonstrate this fact to yourself is hold a taut string in front of your face.

instead you'd rather argue about cartoons and draw things on panoramas.  i don't get why.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2018, 05:49:13 AM
It's not a camera effect. The eye sees it too.

Learn how a panorama works, Gary. A panorama is just a series of horizontally stitched images as the eye and camera sees it.

Here is another one:

(https://i.imgur.com/FpQlQpJ.jpg)

Full size version is here: https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1218a/
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 15, 2018, 06:01:56 AM
Learn how a panorama works, Gary. A panorama is just a series of horizontally stitched images as the eye and camera sees it.
And in the stitching, lines that are straight in real life develop bends and angles because the camera focal point is rotated. 

Take that first panorama image you posted and draw lines across it that represent real life straight horizontal lines. No math. Just approximate. I'd like to see what you think you're seeing.

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: inquisitive on July 15, 2018, 07:09:58 AM
It's not a camera effect. The eye sees it too.

Learn how a panorama works, Gary. A panorama is just a series of horizontally stitched images as the eye and camera sees it.

Here is another one:

(https://i.imgur.com/FpQlQpJ.jpg)

Full size version is here: https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1218a/
We have enough problems with your use of the word perspective, let's not have the same with panorama.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: alfred1 on July 15, 2018, 07:47:40 AM
On the hand. A new moon  clearly shows that the edge of the  Earth is round.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 15, 2018, 07:54:21 AM
This needs to be described using the real properties of the Round Earth System. I thought it was supposed to predict everything? Show it then. Show that the Round Earth System can cause this sort of tilting.
Okay. Challenge accepted.

Using the Round Earth System ™ -based Stellarium, I found that a similar scenario will be occurring on September 17th 2018 right there in San Francisco on the waxing gibbous moon.

After sunset at 7:16PM the moon will be 10° east of due south, 30° in elevation. The sun will have set below the western horizon:

With simulated earthscape and atmosphere and a "straight" line from moon to sun:
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/sxm801.jpg)

Here without earthscape and atmosphere with position of sun in view:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/spc003.jpg)

Despite the sun appearing to be lower than the horizon, the moon's terminator will appear cocked slightly CCW of vertical:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/33a575h.jpg)

Remember the "tilting" about the z-axis I was speaking about earlier?

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2ed8ok6.jpg)

Well, here is a time-lapse of the predicted orientation of the moon's phase on September 17th, from 4:15PM until midnight. (Sunset at 7:14PM at the 10-sec mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX2SiHv1bCY

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on July 15, 2018, 08:21:23 AM
You can't explain this mathematically, and we have not seen a mathematical analysis by an astronomer using the distances and sizes in RET. This is for the simple fact that this matter is unexpainable.

The perspective tilting explanation is fiction. If there was a real explanation, we would have a real document to point to -- not a stupid youtube video of some close range perspective tilting effects.
There are real documents about the "The moon terminator illusion" but astronomers do not see it as an illusion.
They expect it as explained in this quote from the paper referenced below:
Quote from: Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers
The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere.
Minnaert gives only a passing reference: “...the line connecting the horns of the moon, between its first quarter and full moon, for instance, does not appear to be
at all perpendicular to the direction from sun to moon; we apparently think of this direction as being a curved line. Fix this direction by stretching a piece of string taut in front of your eye; however unlikely it may have seemed to you at first you will now perceive that the condition of perpendicularity is satisfied”.

Note carefully, "Fix this direction by stretching a piece of string taut in front of your eye". In front of the eye or camera, not on the photo after it is taken.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
This needs to be described using the real properties of the Round Earth System. I thought it was supposed to predict everything? Show it then. Show that the Round Earth System can cause this sort of tilting.
OK, but I do hope that your maths are better than mine: The Moon Tilt Illusion, Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf)

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2018, 08:31:00 AM
Using the Round Earth System ™ -based Stellarium

This is false. Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.

See the following Youtube video and the excel worksheet in the description.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4eDT8-73ZE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4eDT8-73ZE)

Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2018, 08:33:18 AM
OK, but I do hope that your maths are better than mine: The Moon Tilt Illusion, Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf)

I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

Yes. Read that, and notice the following.

The number of times the author tries to explain the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room or a building when you travel past it: numerous

The number of times the author actually uses the distance to the moon in any of her calculations: none

The number of times the author remarks how mysterious and hard to explain the issue is: several
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: edby on July 15, 2018, 08:40:48 AM
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 15, 2018, 08:47:15 AM
As I said, the only time the moon and sun is seen in the sky is when they are on opposite sides of the sky. Otherwise, when the moon gets too close to the sun it disappears.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In this example, the Moon was slightly West of South, and the Sun was climbing in the East. Roughly 90 degrees between them, as would be expected with a roughly Half Moon.

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L (https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L)


A laser cannon pointed upwards into the sky is going to fire its laser beam into outer space. Its not going to wrap around to the horizon. The only way to get the laser beam to go to the opposite horizon is if you imagine it curving on the dome of the sky.

But we're not talking about something "pointed upwards into the sky" from the ground. We're talking about an object some 240k miles distant, illuminated by a light source some 93 million miles distant. The line between those two IS a straight one, we're merely observing it from different angles, with differing inclinations with respect to that line.

It's a triangle. You, or any other earthbound observer, are at one point. The Sun and Moon are at the other two points. The side connecting sun and moon is the side opposite your point. The earthbound observer is not necessarily on the same plane as that line. The earthbound observer will, 99% of the time, be at an angle to that line, and will not perceive that line as a horizontal.

When looking at 2D diagrams of the interaction of earth, sun and moon, you always have to fill in the third dimension, or model it with scale model earth and moon. The latter would be the empiricist's way. Have you tried it?

Your "string" experiment is bunk and lacking in explanatory power. You can find something pointing upwards and put a string to it and make any number of paths to the opposite horizon.

...but not to a specific object. Nobody is suggesting pointing string at random toward the horizon.

There will need to be a more coherent explanation than this celestial sphere theory. In RET the observers aren't in a planetarium with lines projected on a screen above them that turn into curves. The observers are in regular space.

Coherent explanation already provided to you, in broadly the terms above, and repeated here (again).
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2018, 08:56:40 AM
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?

There is a distance field, but put a 0 into it, or cut it out of the worksheet wntirely. It doesn't affect the phase illuminated at all, or any of the other fields in the main section.

If it was based on the Round Earth model most of those fields should turn NULL when the distance is removed.

The phase of the moon comes in patterns. It is quite easy to predict when that next pattern will occur.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: edby on July 15, 2018, 08:58:25 AM
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?

There is a distance field, but put a 0 into it, or cut it out of the worksheet. It doesn't affect the phase illuminated at all, or any of the other fields in the main section.

If it was based on the Round Earth model most of those fields should turn NULL when the distance is removed.
On my model, if I put the distance at 0, I get #DIV/0!

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

And the reason it gives that is that arcsin(rm/dm) gives that when dm (earth moon distance) is zero.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 15, 2018, 08:59:52 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/jcPUnBj.png)

Are you asserting that if Dexter fires his laser cannon, that the laser beam will leave the weapon and eventually intersect the horizon of the earth?

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

Is it something he can see, above his horizon, or something below?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2018, 09:10:05 AM
Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm). It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.
The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?

There is a distance field, but put a 0 into it, or cut it out of the worksheet. It doesn't affect the phase illuminated at all, or any of the other fields in the main section.

If it was based on the Round Earth model most of those fields should turn NULL when the distance is removed.
On my model, if I put the distance at 0, I get #DIV/0!

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

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

Find the distance field and put 0

Before Zero:

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

After Zero:

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

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

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


The excel worksheet has little to do with the round earth model. It is based on patterns.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 15, 2018, 09:12:29 AM
Find a panorama of the moon pointing into the sky above the sun and draw your string on it.

No. Step away from your PC, go outside when you can see the sun and moon in the sky, and draw your string on what you see, not on a 2D picture. That's the only way to do it. That's the empiricist's way, isn't it? Do a real experiment?

What you are trying to do is say that the sky is a dome and that if you make vertical triangles along the top of the image, cut it out with scissors, and paste it together in a domish way that there is a way to make (force) the moon to point at the sun.

Er, no. Nobody said that. Yes, the sky all around the sphere of the Earth is a sphere, there's no getting away from that. But you cannot simply imagine it as a sphere of fixed diameter. The objects out there are all at differing distances. The observer on Earth is constantly moving in relation to all of the objects, and is most likely never aligned with any orbital plane, nor with any line of illumination between them.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 15, 2018, 09:16:04 AM
The excel worksheet has little to do with the round earth model. It is based on patterns.

Who defined those patterns, if not the astronomers who determined that the Earth has a rotation of approx 24 hrs, that the Moon moves around the Earth in approx 28 days?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on July 15, 2018, 09:19:23 AM
OK, but I do hope that your maths are better than mine: The Moon Tilt Illusion, Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf)

I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

Yes. Read that, and notice the following.

The number of times the author tries to explain the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room or a building when you travel past it: numerous

The number of times the author actually uses the distance to the moon in any of her calculations: none

The number of times the author remarks how mysterious and hard to explain the issue is: several
Why should the "author . . . . . use the distance to the moon in any of her calculations" when those distances are quite irrelevant?
That being so, what is wrong with explaining it in relation to "the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room"?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: edby on July 15, 2018, 09:44:40 AM
The excel worksheet has little to do with the round earth model. It is based on patterns.

Who defined those patterns, if not the astronomers who determined that the Earth has a rotation of approx 24 hrs, that the Moon moves around the Earth in approx 28 days?
Tom's point, and this probably deserves a separate thread, is that astronomers simply observed that the heavens move around the earth in approx. 24 hours, that the Moon moves around the Earth in approx 28 days etc. These are simply observations, with no underlying predictive model.

To explain the underlying predictive model, such as Kepler's 3rd law combined with Newton's laws, would require much deeper understand of the mathematical relationships.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 15, 2018, 02:02:02 PM
Using the Round Earth System ™ -based Stellarium

This is false. Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.


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

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

But back to the challenge to show you this "tilt" and how it has nothing to do with the <2° "shift" that you focused in on. How do you explain that tilting of the moon in flat earth mechanics? Here's something that will either help or cause more consternation: if you switch from an azimuthal to an equatorial mount view in Stellarium, that rolling tilt goes away, but then the earth ground plane goes into a rolling motion.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 15, 2018, 04:39:53 PM
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.

(https://i.imgur.com/qkT3vQr.jpg)

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

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

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

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

(https://i.imgur.com/Qg6eWiX.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 15, 2018, 07:26:05 PM
Tom, I'm working on the math video as promised. You've mentioned concerns about how this works with a crescent moon a few times. I'm not seeing any examples of this effect with a crescent moon. So far, all examples use a gibbous moon. Can you provide more on what you're talking about? I want to make sure I've got that covered.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on July 15, 2018, 08:11:52 PM
Perspective very much does come into the discussion in order to explain why the light/shadow of the sun doesn't appear to be pointing straight at the sun from the perspective of earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc)

Ignore what Tom posted. He's working the wrong problem.

The author of that video is, once again, as in the numerous explanations we have seen, comparing close range perspective tilting to a grand Round Earth system with bodies that are very far away.

No, the author of that video is explaining it correctly, and very well too.  I can not explain this better that him.  He's doing a great job.  You're just not allowing yourself to get this because it invalidates your beliefs.  It is possible that these concepts are simply beyond some people.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 16, 2018, 04:49:24 AM
Speaking of which, I never saw a good waning crescent moon this time around that showed "earthlight" illumination of it's portion in shadow. Now, we're in the new moon phase, so I'll have to wait and start watching Friday or so just after sunset to see if I can catch it on the waxing crescent. JRowe said he'd never seen such the phenomenon.

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

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

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/6rsjsz.jpg)

The bright dot is Venus, and that other star is Leo.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 16, 2018, 09:25:40 PM
Work in progress so far. Here's a 3D realtime visualization of the paper that was linked here earlier.
The location of the sun and moon in this screenshot have been set to Los Angeles, CA at 8:00 pm July 24th.
BTW, sunset on July 24th should be a really good time to see the illusion at work.
So what you see here is my own version of the math to create the visualization. The blue ball is the Earth, the yellow is the Sun, the gray is the Moon. This is basically a dynamic re-creation of Figure 7 from that paper, although the only math used from that paper in this visualization is the number displayed as 43.60749 which is the apparent angle of light on the Moon in degrees. The red line with the balls on the end represents what the viewer sees as the apparent lighting direction.
In this case, the Moon appears to be lit from 43.6 degrees above the horizontal. (Go check out the moon at sunset July 24th to check it out.)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gub458wb52vd9dc/2018-07-16.png?dl=1)
Next, I plan to record a video going through the math in that paper and using this dynamic sim to do a better explanation of it all.
After that, I was thinking I would do the math in an entirely different way... basically the way I built the sim in the first place. The numbers should match up, and that'll be a nice little confirmation.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 17, 2018, 04:45:52 AM
Hey Bobby,
My camera is still crapped out. (It uses a custom battery, and I can't find my charger anywhere.) Think you could take pictures of the moon at sunset on the 24th? I'd like to have real-world observations to validate the math and simulation.

Tom, if you want to take some pictures too and post them, that'd be super cool. Or anybody! Just tell me where you are when you take it, and we can compare the sim against your photos.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 17, 2018, 05:44:11 AM
I will, but be aware that my evening skies are not reliably clear this time of year. Here's what the simulator predicts:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/33yntcm.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 17, 2018, 06:35:55 AM
Here are two 2D depictions of the same wide angle view of the sky:

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/208g1mh.jpg)

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

The second shows what happens to the representation of that straight path of sun-to-moon light when the horizon is straightened.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 19, 2018, 08:01:58 AM
Tom, you've inspired me. I'll do the math for you. I'll make you a video (100% troll free this time). But in return for all this effort, I'd like something from you. I'd like you to agree in advance that IF I can do the math you ask for, and IF the math shows that the RE model explains this illusion, you will publicly concede the point. You don't have to agree that the world is round, just admit that you made a mistake and the moon terminator illusion is perfectly explained by the standard heliocentric model.

What do you say? Sound fair enough?
At long last, here is the video where I "DO THE MATH".
https://youtu.be/wAWJ1jbcHOA
I followed through that paper and tried to explain the more difficult steps.
I showed in my 3D sim what July 24th at sunset will look like. Compare that with reality next week.
If you have any other dates or locations you'd like to check, just let me know, and we'll plug in the numbers.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2018, 10:32:26 PM
I've watched the first 17 minutes so far before I had to stop. It seems to be a good job at illustrating what the paper is trying to describe. Please do not take my criticism the wrong way.

Movies starts off with examples that are clearly close range, and therefore subject to significant perspective effects.

Model from video:

(https://i.imgur.com/ZPPEJFo.png)

I may be mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am to be wrong, but this seems to be a bit out of proportion.

Distance from earth to sun: 92,960,000 mi
Distance from earth to moon: 238,900 mi

If we imagine that line growing outwards from the earth to the sun growing and the distance to the moon shrinking, we can visualize that if the proportions changed in that manner the phase would point lower.

At the 15 minute mark the attempt of the project is now to "project the sun and the moon onto a view plane" at a distance close to the observer.

"Viewing Plane" theory from the paper:

(https://i.imgur.com/aM8Lzfj.png)

The construct by this author of the paper in question (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf) just shows that she was unable to explain the event in any other way.

She is basically using the inexplicable "celestial sphere" idea where bodies are projected on a celestial sphere like a planetarium and straight lines become curved, which is also described in her work as appearing in astronomical literature.

Current thoughts: Her work seems to be mathematical fantasy to try and explain something that is not able to be explained.

I will continue watching when I get a chance.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 19, 2018, 11:09:32 PM
I've watched the first 17 minutes so far before I had to stop. It seems to be a good job at illustrating what the paper is trying to describe. Please do not take my criticism the wrong way.

Movies starts off with examples that are clearly close range, and therefore subject to significant perspective effects.

Model from video:

(https://i.imgur.com/ZPPEJFo.png)

I may be mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am to be wrong, but this seems to be a bit out of proportion.

Distance from earth to sun: 92,960,000 mi
Distance from earth to moon: 238,900 mi

If we imagine that line growing outwards from the earth to the sun growing and the distance to the moon shrinking, we can visualize that if the proportions changed in that manner the phase would point lower.

At the 15 minute mark the attempt of the project is now to "project the sun and the moon onto a view plane" at a distance close to the observer.

"Viewing Plane" theory from the paper:

(https://i.imgur.com/aM8Lzfj.png)

The construct by this author of the paper in question (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf) just shows that she was unable to explain the event in any other way.

She is basically using the inexplicable "celestial sphere" idea where bodies are projected on a celestial sphere like a planetarium and straight lines become curved, which is also described in her work as appearing in astronomical literature.

Current thoughts: Her work seems to be mathematical fantasy to try and explain something that is not able to be explained.

I will continue watching when I get a chance.

It's long and pretty boring. Please take a look at the jump ahead section in the description. It should give you the spot to find your "scale" issues addressed.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 20, 2018, 01:43:03 AM
I'm working hard to try and gain a little bit of trust here, so it pains me to have to be blunt. But trust comes from honesty, and I have been nothing but honest with you. Tom I mean no offense, but your statements are nonsensical from a mathematical and physical point of view.

The construct by this author of the paper in question (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf) just shows that she was unable to explain the event in any other way.

(There are 2 authors, but whatever.) This is the one, the only, and the true explanation of the event. This is not some pie-in-the-sky what-if type of solution. This is the math that follows from the standard model of the Earth-Moon-Sun system. Nothing outside of the standard Earth-Moon-Sun system are introduced at any point during this paper.

There is some speculation about how observers react when there are insufficient visual cues, but none of that has any bearing on the interesting angle which is "alpha". The angle the moon will be lit from falls out purely from the relative positions and angles of the sun, the moon, and the observer.

Your quote seems to suggest that there was some other way you could interpret this. There is not. If the Earth-Moon-Sun system is physically arranged in the way predicted by science, this is exactly what you get.

She is basically using the inexplicable "celestial sphere" idea where bodies are projected on a celestial sphere like a planetarium and straight lines become curved, which is also described in her work as appearing in astronomical literature.
No they are not. There is no celestial sphere at work. That's not what is happening in the slightest. I want you to start to trust me, so I'll be very patient about this. There is a projection onto the observer's view plane. That is not a "celestial sphere". I tried to explain this in my video by using the marker on a window analogy. Another analogy would be the focal plane at the back of a camera or the retina of your eye. A camera records the image that hits the CCD (or film) at the back. That CCD is a flat plate - a plane. The mathematics allows us to place a plane anywhere in front of the camera and make a perfect scaled image of what the camera will record. The only thing we need in order to prove this is the fact that light travels in straight lines. I know your model says this is not so, but this is the RE model we are testing. In the RE model, light travels in straight lines (since we are not discussing any refraction effects here).

Current thoughts: Her work seems to be mathematical fantasy to try and explain something that is not able to be explained.
It is explained perfectly. The math is really quite boring, but you asked me to do the math. There you are, there is the math.

The physical proof is where I suggest you turn your attention if you still find this hard to believe. Holding a physical ball in your hand and looking at it is much more compelling than a bunch of vector math.

However, you asked me to do this math, and I have done it for you. If there are any specific steps along the way you want more information about, just ask. I would be happy to explain any of it. If you find yourself not completely understanding some of it, please step back and realize that you cannot judge what you don't understand.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 20, 2018, 07:34:31 AM
I may be mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am to be wrong, but this seems to be a bit out of proportion.

Distance from earth to sun: 92,960,000 mi
Distance from earth to moon: 238,900 mi

It has to be to have a meaningful graphic fit onto your screen.

Let's approximate this to 92 'units' distance to the sun, and 0.24 units, distance to the moon, keeping correct proportions

If you represent 92 units across the full width of your 50cm wide monitor, each unit is (50/92) = 0.54cm, or 5mm.

0.24 units, at that scale, is (0.24*5) = 1.3mm. So you'd have to draw Earth and Moon smaller than that to show them on the graphic, with 1.3mm separating them. Seems you'd need a magnifying glass.

No?

 
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 20, 2018, 04:18:44 PM
I may be mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am to be wrong, but this seems to be a bit out of proportion.

Distance from earth to sun: 92,960,000 mi
Distance from earth to moon: 238,900 mi

It has to be to have a meaningful graphic fit onto your screen.

Let's approximate this to 92 'units' distance to the sun, and 0.24 units, distance to the moon, keeping correct proportions

If you represent 92 units across the full width of your 50cm wide monitor, each unit is (50/92) = 0.54cm, or 5mm.

0.24 units, at that scale, is (0.24*5) = 1.3mm. So you'd have to draw Earth and Moon smaller than that to show them on the graphic, with 1.3mm separating them. Seems you'd need a magnifying glass.

No?
Having anticipated this criticism from the previous video, I made you a version to scale for this video. As Tumeni points out, the scale makes all the different parts tiny if they need to share a screen, but with a 3D realtime sim, you can zoom around and look at the different parts from different angles to see it all - it doesn't have to all fit together into the same screen.

In the description of my video: @2:43  New simulation - this time to scale
https://youtu.be/wAWJ1jbcHOA?t=145

@41:09 Demonstrating that the answer is independent of the distances. It is based only on the angles
https://youtu.be/wAWJ1jbcHOA?t=2469
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 25, 2018, 05:09:05 AM
Tom, you've inspired me. I'll do the math for you. I'll make you a video (100% troll free this time). But in return for all this effort, I'd like something from you. I'd like you to agree in advance that IF I can do the math you ask for, and IF the math shows that the RE model explains this illusion, you will publicly concede the point. You don't have to agree that the world is round, just admit that you made a mistake and the moon terminator illusion is perfectly explained by the standard heliocentric model.

What do you say? Sound fair enough?
If the distances/attributes of the Round Earth Model can explain the moon tilt illusion for gibbous and crescent moons, I have absolutely no problem admitting that. As I have seen, it cannot. It cannot explain it, and this is why the literature is so vague about the matter.

Tom, I've done the math. I've explained it all using a physical model as well as a mathematical one and a 3D simulation. You can verify these against mooncalc or stellarium if you like. Better yet, you can step outside and look in the sky to check it. This is absolutely air tight.

You agreed that if I could provide this, you would concede the point. All you need to do now is to publicly acknowledge that the tilt of the moon is completely consistent with the RE model.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on July 25, 2018, 05:52:05 PM
You agreed that if I could provide this, you would concede the point. All you need to do now is to publicly acknowledge that the tilt of the moon is completely consistent with the RE model.
Such a concession would put serious strain on any flat earth model that accepts that the moon's illumination and phase are due to reflection of the sun's light.  The geometry explaining that illusion doesn't work in any flat earth topology I've seen. The only explanation that might work is if the moon is self-luminescent, which is why (I think) Tom introduced the conundrum in the first place. But as you've explained, you can explain it with moon reflecting sunlight in a round earth model. That doesn't solve the puzzle for flat earth though; thus the theory that the moon generates its own light.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2018, 06:24:00 PM
That's not the Round Earth Model. Since when in RET are images of bodies in space projected onto a plane close above the observer's heads?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 25, 2018, 06:47:36 PM
That's not the Round Earth Model. Since when in RET are images of bodies in space projected onto a plane close above the observer's heads?
When you take a photo of something, an image is projected onto the film inside the camera. Use a digital camera, and the film is replaced by a CCD plate. Use your own eyes, and the film is replaced by the retina at the back of your eye. That's right, every time you take a photo of something, images of that something are projected onto a plane inside the camera. Don't try to tell us that cameras don't work under RE next. Last I checked, cameras worked on flat earth too.

Stop trying to make excuses. It's time to own up to it. You were wrong. Just be big enough to admit it.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2018, 04:42:46 AM
Okay, I finished watching the video. I kept waiting with anticipation for math to be done under the dimensions of the Round Earth System, as advertised. However, that did not happen. The video mostly consisted of you reading the equations from the paper. The dimensions of the Round Earth System appear nowhere in it. In fact, the author says in the work that they avoided using the RET numbers.

From p. 9:

Quote
The value of the angle α is the same for the vectors m, s and z or their corresponding unit vectors, which are used in Eq. (11) to avoid having to know the actual distances of the moon and the sun from the observer.

The dimensions for the Round Earth System are nowhere in the math by the authors of that paper, nor is it in your video when describing the matter.

Secondly, it is apparent to all that the author needs to project images onto a plane close above the observer's head in order to attempt to describe this. It is entirely apparent that the authors cannot "really" explain it.

We may as well just say that the moon and sun are a close distance above the observer's head, as to entertain that.

Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.

Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.

All-in-all the marks for the "Round Earth explanation" are poor, and I intend to point these things out when I get around to making the Wiki article on the subject.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 26, 2018, 06:24:24 AM
Okay, I finished watching the video. I kept waiting with anticipation for math to be done under the dimensions of the Round Earth System, as advertised. However, that did not happen. The video mostly consisted of you reading the equations from the paper.
The honorable thing to do is admit you do not understand the math and concede the point.

The dimensions of the Round Earth System appear nowhere in it. In fact, the author says in the work that they avoided using the RET numbers.

From p. 9:

Quote
The value of the angle α is the same for the vectors m, s and z or their corresponding unit vectors, which are used in Eq. (11) to avoid having to know the actual distances of the moon and the sun from the observer.

The dimensions for the Round Earth System are nowhere in the math by the authors of that paper, nor is it in your video when describing the matter.
You want the dimensions of the moon and sun to be used? Here they are. You cannot deny it anymore:
m = <Dm*cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), Dm*cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), Dm*sin(ELm)>
s = <Ds*cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), Ds*cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), Ds*sin(ELs)>
where:
Dm is distance from earth to moon = 238,900 miles
Ds is distance from earth to sun = 92,960,000 miles
For my example, ELm=20.89, AZm=136.35, ELs=-0.24, AZs=294.62
m = <-160890, 154062, 85186>
s = <38726600, -84508300, -389400>
s cross m = <-7138932301000, -3236313581600, -7630242937800>
p = m cross (s cross m) = <-899841878721166000, -1835766873255628000, 1620528680300286000>
h = m cross z = <154062, 160890, 0>
p dot h = -433987971757638265212000
|p| = 2608805976556893954
|h| = 222757
(p dot h) / (|p|*|h|) = -0.74680042
taking the abs as per the convention in the paper to get the angle we want...
alpha = arccos(0.74680042) = 41.686 degrees!

The fraction of a degree we get in variance is due to different amounts of precision used in the calculations (round-off error).

So for the last time, stop going on and on about distances. We can easily prove that the distances cancel out of the equation anyway. If you can't follow the math, there are the numbers using the distances to the moon and sun. Stop whining about it already.

Secondly, it is apparent to all that the author needs to project images onto a plane close above the observer's head in order to attempt to describe this. It is entirely apparent that the authors cannot "really" explain it.

We may as well just say that the moon and sun are a close distance above the observer's head, as to entertain that.
What is apparent to all is that you simply do not understand the math. You went on and on shouting "DO THE MATH." Well I did the math. It isn't my fault you don't understand it. I'm happy to explain any individual step you can't understand.

This isn't that hard to understand really. A camera takes a snapshot of the 2D image it sees in front of it. There is a 3D world in front of the camera, but the image is 2D. We call this capture of a 3D scene onto a 2D image a "projection". That's what we have done here. That's how you explain this phenomenon. What is happening is a 3D direction (the light that hits the moon coming from the direction of the sun) is resolved by your eyes into a 2D image. Your brain judges the direction of that light based on the 2D image.

Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.

Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.
This is your distances complaint AGAIN! I've addressed it several times now. Just above here, I worked the math with all the distances included.

I have shown mathematically that those distances cancel.

I showed in the 3D simulation that those distances do not matter.

Now I've worked the math with the distances included, and guess what? I got the right answer AGAIN!

As long as you can create the proper angles, the distances are not part of this illusion. That's why you can hold a ping-pong ball at arm's length and get the same lighting as the moon has on it.

All-in-all the marks for the "Round Earth explanation" are poor, and I intend to point these things out when I get around to making the Wiki article on the subject.
The only thing poor here is your ability to admit it when you are wrong.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 26, 2018, 06:34:25 AM
Show us a photo of yourself holding a ball up to the moon. Show us how the sun's light hitting the ball is significantly different from the sun's light hitting the moon.

I have done this. Others have done this. We are not liars.

This entire thread about "DO THE MATH" was nothing more than a distraction to avoid that simple exercise. You don't have to work the math, just take a photo of a ball. But you won't show us the ball will you? Don't worry. We all know why you won't do it. It's because you know that the results will show you are wrong.

You are hoping that your quote mining and mathematical hand-waving will distract your audience from the fact that the light hitting the moon is perfectly consistent with the direction of the sun. The only reason you refuse to hold a ball up to the moon is because you know what that would show.

Break that down. You know what holding up a ball would show. Instead you continue insisting the opposite of what you know the ball would show. What does that say about your position?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 26, 2018, 11:02:22 AM
We did this a while ago see (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6056.msg113954#msg113954) Tom refused to do the zetetic thing then too, Junker did promise to go out and give it a go but never got back to us, Junker did you, will you, try the string test?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 26, 2018, 04:49:09 PM
You agreed that if I could provide this, you would concede the point. All you need to do now is to publicly acknowledge that the tilt of the moon is completely consistent with the RE model.
Such a concession would put serious strain on any flat earth model that accepts that the moon's illumination and phase are due to reflection of the sun's light.

The work put in and the math done is very impressive. I seems that someone would have a VERY hard time not admitting that the moon tilt is mathematically possible in the round earth model. I'm consistently amazed that it is.  It's not like people are saying the earth is round. people are saying that the earth COULD BE round and we could still have the observations of the moon that we currently have.

That doesn't solve the puzzle for flat earth though

We have already discussed that if the moon was hundreds of thousands of miles above the sun the earth could be flat and we could be within the angle of a full moon. I know this contradicts the wiki but so does the self lit moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2018, 06:23:21 PM
I will come back to your other arguments in a bit. This is the bit that makes it clear:

Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.

Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.
This is your distances complaint AGAIN! I've addressed it several times now. Just above here, I worked the math with all the distances included.

I have shown mathematically that those distances cancel.

I showed in the 3D simulation that those distances do not matter.

It is pretty obvious that distances do matter.

Your position: In RET a green arrow suspended in the air at the height of the moon which points at the sun will point in the same direction, regardless of whether the sun is 1 foot from the earth, 1 million miles from the earth, or 100 billion miles from the earth. It will point in the same direction nonetheless!

This is what you are saying, this is what the shady math is saying, and everyone knows that this is NOT TRUE.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 26, 2018, 06:36:56 PM
I will come back to your other arguments in a bit. This is the bit that makes it clear:

Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.

Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.
This is your distances complaint AGAIN! I've addressed it several times now. Just above here, I worked the math with all the distances included.

I have shown mathematically that those distances cancel.

I showed in the 3D simulation that those distances do not matter.

It is pretty obvious that distances do matter.

Your position: In RET a green arrow suspended in the air at the height of the moon which points at the sun will point in the same direction, regardless of whether the sun is 1 foot from the earth, 1 million miles from the earth, or 100 billion miles from the earth. It will point in the same direction nonetheless!

This is what you are saying, this is what the shady math is saying, and everyone knows that this is NOT TRUE.
If you can find any error anywhere in the math, please share. If you cannot, then you must accept that the math is correct. It's either correct or it's not. If it's not, please point out the mistake.

Edit: Yes I noticed that you have conveniently ignored where I just worked all the math using the actual distances and still got the correct answer. It's all right there. Stop ignoring it.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 29, 2018, 04:59:50 AM
Come on Tom. It's time to make it right. The RE model explains the tilt of the moon just fine. At this point it's entirely clear. I'm not expecting you to give up on FE over it, but I do expect you to admit that the RE model has a perfectly accurate explanation for the angle of the moon's tilt.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 30, 2018, 11:35:07 PM
Come on Tom. It's time to make it right. The RE model explains the tilt of the moon just fine. At this point it's entirely clear. I'm not expecting you to give up on FE over it, but I do expect you to admit that the RE model has a perfectly accurate explanation for the angle of the moon's tilt.

It seems to be that you have shown very strong evidence which suggest that a full moon is possible in the round earth model. Will the corresponding flat earth wiki be updated to suggest that a full moon MIGHT be possible in the existing round earth model?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2018, 05:59:19 AM
ICST, you and the author of that paper say that the 238,900 mile high moon points the same way, whether the sun is one foot away from the earth or 92.96 million miles away from the earth. The angle of the phase will never change.

Right Angled Triangle Calculator: https://www.easycalculation.com/trigonometry/triangle-angles.php

Select "I want to calculate Angle and Hypotenuse side."

(https://www.easycalculation.com/images/angle.jpg)

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 92960000
angle b = 89.8528 degrees

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 9296000
angle b = 88.5279 degrees

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 929600
angle b = 75.5873

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 92960
angle b = 21.261799999999994

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 9296
angle b = 2.2283999999999935

What am I doing incorrectly here?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 31, 2018, 06:45:47 AM
ICST, you and the author of that paper say that the 238,900 mile high moon points the same way, whether the sun is one foot away from the earth or 92.96 million miles away from the earth. The angle of the phase will never change.

Right Angled Triangle Calculator: https://www.easycalculation.com/trigonometry/triangle-angles.php

Select "I want to calculate Angle and Hypotenuse side."

(https://www.easycalculation.com/images/angle.jpg)

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 92960000
angle b = 89.8528 degrees

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 9296000
angle b = 88.5279 degrees

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 929600
angle b = 75.5873

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 92960
angle b = 21.261799999999994

Opposite Side: 238900
Adjacent Side: 9296
angle b = 2.2283999999999935

What am I doing incorrectly here?
Tom, I'm glad you aren't abandoning the discussion.
As you already saw, I did the calculations with the full numbers. I'll repeat it here for you:
m = <Dm*cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), Dm*cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), Dm*sin(ELm)>
s = <Ds*cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), Ds*cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), Ds*sin(ELs)>
where:
Dm is distance from earth to moon = 238,900 miles
Ds is distance from earth to sun = 92,960,000 miles
For my example, ELm=20.89, AZm=136.35, ELs=-0.24, AZs=294.62
m = <-160890, 154062, 85186>
s = <38726600, -84508300, -389400>
s cross m = <-7138932301000, -3236313581600, -7630242937800>
p = m cross (s cross m) = <-899841878721166000, -1835766873255628000, 1620528680300286000>
h = m cross z = <154062, 160890, 0>
p dot h = -433987971757638265212000
|p| = 2608805976556893954
|h| = 222757
(p dot h) / (|p|*|h|) = -0.74680042
taking the abs as per the convention in the paper to get the angle we want...
alpha = arccos(0.74680042) = 41.686 degrees!

The fraction of a degree we get in variance is due to different amounts of precision used in the calculations (round-off error).
If you object to the part of the math where we showed the distances are not necessary in this calculation, just forget we ever mentioned it. There's the math done with the actual distances. Can you accept it now?

I'd like to end the discussion of the math now. There is the tilt angle (not the phase - the tilt) calculated using the RE distances and predicted angles for the sun and moon on July 24th at 8pm Los Angeles. Having trouble with the math? Not an issue. Just go outside when the moon and sun are both visible and hold up a ball. Isn't that better than the math anyway?

As I've said, I'd prefer this be the end of the "DO THE MATH" dialog. However, if you insist, I can show you your mistake. Let's just drop it though huh? We don't need the math, and even if we want the math to provide accurate tilt angle predictions, we can skip the part where we drop the distances.

I want to make it perfectly clear to you as well as to all readers here, that I will not lie to you. I will not deceive. I can help people who genuinely want to understand the physics and the math behind this stuff. So if you insist, yes I can point out where you are making some mistakes with the math here. But I sincerely think it's just a waste of time. Let's just accept the ball method instead. Yeah?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 31, 2018, 06:56:14 AM
(https://www.easycalculation.com/images/angle.jpg)

What am I doing incorrectly here?

1. Using a diagram which does not have Angle b marked upon it? I can see a Greek symbol, but no b.

2. Using a right-angle triangle, when the relationship between Earth, Moon and Sun (assuming you mean each is at a point of the triangle) is mostly never this type of triangle.

3. Doing calculations for the Sun being a short distance away, which it is not. You can prove this for yourself, and prove your calculation of this to be moot by ...

Going outside on a day when you can see Sun and Moon. Hold up a ball in front of the Moon, such that the ball is in sunlight. Note how the illuminated part of the Moon and the ball match, showing that they have the same source of illumination, and that that source is a considerable distance away (since the Moon is approx 240k miles away, it must, by definition, be significantly farther than this).
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2018, 07:04:02 AM
Quote
m = <Dm*cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), Dm*cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), Dm*sin(ELm)>
s = <Ds*cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), Ds*cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), Ds*sin(ELs)>
where:
Dm is distance from earth to moon = 238,900 miles
Ds is distance from earth to sun = 92,960,000 miles
For my example, ELm=20.89, AZm=136.35, ELs=-0.24, AZs=294.62
m = <-160890, 154062, 85186>
s = <38726600, -84508300, -389400>
s cross m = <-7138932301000, -3236313581600, -7630242937800>
p = m cross (s cross m) = <-899841878721166000, -1835766873255628000, 1620528680300286000>
h = m cross z = <154062, 160890, 0>
p dot h = -433987971757638265212000
|p| = 2608805976556893954
|h| = 222757
(p dot h) / (|p|*|h|) = -0.74680042
taking the abs as per the convention in the paper to get the angle we want...
alpha = arccos(0.74680042) = 41.686 degrees!

The fraction of a degree we get in variance is due to different amounts of precision used in the calculations (round-off error).
If you object to the part of the math where we showed the distances are not necessary in this calculation, just forget we ever mentioned it. There's the math done with the actual distances. Can you accept it now?

Why doesn't the angle of the moon's phase change with that math when we place the sun one mile away from the earth and 92,960,000 miles away from the earth?

Surely the angle of the phase must change between those huge ranges.

(https://www.easycalculation.com/images/angle.jpg)

What am I doing incorrectly here?

Using a diagram which does not have Angle b marked upon it? I can see a Greek symbol, but no b.

Angle b is the top left angle in that image. It changes when we change the distance to the sun (the adjacent side).

Quote
2. Using a right-angle triangle, when the relationship between Earth, Moon and Sun (assuming you mean each is at a point of the triangle) is mostly never this type of triangle.

The angle changes when the distance to the sun changes. It doesn't matter if the moon is directly overhead, or at 45 degrees into the opposite horizon from the sun.

Quote
3. Doing calculations for the Sun being a short distance away, which it is not. You can prove this for yourself, and prove your calculation of this to be moot by ...

Going outside on a day when you can see Sun and Moon. Hold up a ball in front of the Moon, such that the ball is in sunlight. Note how the illuminated part of the Moon and the ball match, showing that they have the same source of illumination, and that that source is a considerable distance away (since the Moon is approx 240k miles away, it must, by definition, be significantly farther than this).

How would that prove how far away the sun is or provide support for a Round Earth?

The moon and sun are often only seen during the day when they are on on opposite skies, since the moon disappears when it gets too close to the sun. Holding up a ball between them would create some kind of gibbous moon, to which you can angle, rise above or below you, rotate slightly around, to try and match with the moon. It is totally invalid and does nothing to provide insight on the matter. Close up perspective effects can simulate many shapes.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 31, 2018, 08:33:33 AM
Quote
m = <Dm*cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), Dm*cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), Dm*sin(ELm)>
s = <Ds*cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), Ds*cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), Ds*sin(ELs)>
where:
Dm is distance from earth to moon = 238,900 miles
Ds is distance from earth to sun = 92,960,000 miles
For my example, ELm=20.89, AZm=136.35, ELs=-0.24, AZs=294.62
m = <-160890, 154062, 85186>
s = <38726600, -84508300, -389400>
s cross m = <-7138932301000, -3236313581600, -7630242937800>
p = m cross (s cross m) = <-899841878721166000, -1835766873255628000, 1620528680300286000>
h = m cross z = <154062, 160890, 0>
p dot h = -433987971757638265212000
|p| = 2608805976556893954
|h| = 222757
(p dot h) / (|p|*|h|) = -0.74680042
taking the abs as per the convention in the paper to get the angle we want...
alpha = arccos(0.74680042) = 41.686 degrees!

The fraction of a degree we get in variance is due to different amounts of precision used in the calculations (round-off error).
If you object to the part of the math where we showed the distances are not necessary in this calculation, just forget we ever mentioned it. There's the math done with the actual distances. Can you accept it now?

Why doesn't the angle of the moon's phase change with that math when we place the sun one mile away from the earth and 92,960,000 miles away from the earth?

Surely the angle of the phase must change between those huge ranges.

At this point, it should be painfully clear to all readers that you are deliberately avoiding the suggestion that we move to the "hold up a ball" method instead of this math. You have repeatedly ignored the suggestion, and it should be very obvious to everyone that you are ignoring it. This strikes me as suspiciously deceitful. I trust that our readers see it this way as well.

Upon your insistence, back to the math. You ask, "Why doesn't the angle of the moon's phase change with that math when we place the sun one mile away from the earth and 92,960,000 miles away from the earth?"

Before I go any further, let's be clear. We are talking about the angle of the moon's tilt. We are not discussing the moon's phase.

Let's start with the 3D visualization.
https://youtu.be/wAWJ1jbcHOA?t=2500
At 41:40, I showed exactly what happens when we change those distances. In the left-hand view, we are looking at the triangle made by the Earth, Moon, and Sun. Right at 41:44, I change the distance to the sun from 100 to 1000 units. Notice that the angles of that triangle in the left-pane DO change. This is exactly what you would expect. (In your sample above, you are using a right-triangle calculator. This triangle is not likely to be a right-triangle. In my example it clearly is not... perhaps we can come back to that.) However, none of the angles of this triangle are the angle that we are looking for. None of these angles is the angle of the moon's tilt.

If we look in the right-hand pane, we'll see the angle we ARE looking for. The angle we are interested in is the blue line in the right-hand diagram. Remember what that blue line in the right-hand pane is? That's the line connecting the sun and the moon. Yes that IS one of the 3 sides of the triangle we were looking at in the left-hand pane. The difference here is that we're looking at that line from a different angle. In the right-hand view, we're looking up at the moon from our observer's location. Scroll back to 41:40 and watch as the distances are changed. Notice that the blue line in the right-hand pane gets skinnier, but its angle in this view does not change.

At 41:55 I increase the distance by another factor of 10 (for a total of 100 times further than it started). Again we see the triangle in the left-hand pane changes, but the angle of the blue line in the right-hand pane does not change.

So we've seen in the simulation that the angle of the moon's tilt doesn't change with those distances, but that answer may be unintuitive. That's understandable. But think about this. Back at 15:48, we took the intersection of 2 planes, and I talked about how that intersection would give us the apparent angle of the light hitting the moon. That may not be obvious, so let me walk through it slowly...

1) The light coming from the sun to the moon must lie within in the Observer-Moon-Sun plane. That seems fairly obvious. That light should be along the Moon-Sun edge of the triangle we used to make the plane.
2) The Observer is ALSO within the Observer-Moon-Sun plane. That also seems obvious. We used the observer as the 3rd point to create that plane.
3) What does a plane look like to a viewer inside the plane? It looks like an edge - a line.
4) So any part of that plane which lies in front of the observer has all collapsed into a single line. Any part of that plane is all the same line from our point of view.
5) If any part of that plane is all the same line, then the line from the sun to the moon looks the same as any other part of that plane when viewed edge-on like this.
6) If we were to move the sun-moon line to another spot within this same plane, that line would look exactly the same - the same as any part of the plane does.

And now with that clear, what happens to the observer-moon-sun plane when we change the distance to either the moon or the sun? If we keep the ANGLE between the observer and the moon steady, but change the distance to the moon. Also if we keep the ANGLE from the observer to the sun steady while changing that distance. Try it out on a table-top. Place 3 objects on a table-top and call the triangle they make the plane. Well the plane is the table-top of course. How does this plane change when you change the distance between your 3 objects? It's still the table-top of course. Changing the distances between the 3 objects does not change the plane that contains them.

7) So changing the distance from the earth to the sun does not affect the observer-moon-sun plane.
8) The plane viewed edge-on still looks exactly the same.
9) That plane viewed edge-on IS the apparent lighting direction from the moon to the sun when viewed by the observer.
10) And it is unaffected by the distances between the bodies - you cannot change the orientation of that plane without changing the angles between the observer and the other bodies.

Hopefully that helps. But we could approach this with pure math as well. Feel free to just stop reading at this point because math is pretty boring to most people, and I think I'm beating a dead horse by now...

Back to this equation:
cos(alpha) = (p dot h) / (|p| * |h|)
We got this far using the full vectors for m and s. We have included all the proper distances up to this point.
Now let's substitute in the values we have for m and s:
m = <Dm*cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), Dm*cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), Dm*sin(ELm)>
s = <Ds*cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), Ds*cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), Ds*sin(ELs)>
Let's pull out those distances as constant factors:
m = Dm*<cos(ELm)*cos(AZm), cos(ELm)*sin(AZm), sin(ELm)> = Dm*mhat
s = Ds*<cos(ELs)*cos(AZs), cos(ELs)*sin(AZs), sin(ELs)> = Ds*shat
Ok? Now let's do the rest of the derivation like that...
s cross m = Dm*Ds*(shat cross mhat)
p = m cross (s cross m) = Dm*mhat cross (Dm*Ds*(shat cross mhat)) = Dm*Dm*Ds*(mhat cross (shat cross mhat))
h = m cross z = Dm*(mhat cross z)    (z already has a unit length)
p dot h = (Dm*Dm*Ds*(mhat cross (shat cross mhat))) dot (Dm*(mhat cross z)) = Dm*Dm*Dm*Ds*( (mhat cross (shat cross mhat)) dot (mhat cross z) )
|p| = |Dm*Dm*Ds*(mhat cross (shat cross mhat))| = Dm*Dm*Ds*|mhat cross (shat cross mhat)|
|h| = |Dm*(mhat cross z)| = Dm*|mhat cross z|

Now let's divide:
(p dot h) / (|p|*|h|) = Dm*Dm*Dm*Ds*( (mhat cross (shat cross mhat)) dot (mhat cross z) ) / (Dm*Dm*Ds*|mhat cross (shat cross mhat)| * Dm*|mhat cross z|)
Quick rearrange:
= (Dm*Dm*Dm*Ds / Dm*Dm*Dm*Ds) * ( (mhat cross (shat cross mhat)) dot (mhat cross z) ) / ( |mhat cross (shat cross mhat)| * |mhat cross z| )
Let's cancel the constants
= ( (mhat cross (shat cross mhat)) dot (mhat cross z) ) / ( |mhat cross (shat cross mhat)| * |mhat cross z| )
And BOOM! proved mathematically.

So let's get real here... that's some fairly advanced math. I don't expect everyone to follow it. What I do expect is for you to VERIFY it EXPERIMENTALLY. Measure the angles to the sun and the moon (or look them up). Crunch these numbers using the final equation from the paper. Then go outside and measure the tilt angle of the moon. Does it match? How close is it? You can do that much with no math background at all.

And please please remember... The answers do not always match up with your first guess. Sometimes nature can be surprising. Embrace it. Science is much cooler when you discover the world is trickier than you thought it was.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 31, 2018, 08:51:59 AM
Angle b is the top left angle in that image. It changes when we change the distance to the sun (the adjacent side).

But the distance to the sun does not change in reality.

The angle changes when the distance to the sun changes.

Yes, but the distance to the sun does not change in reality.

Quote
Go outside on a day when you can see Sun and Moon. Hold up a ball in front of the Moon, such that the ball is in sunlight. Note how the illuminated part of the Moon and the ball match, showing that they have the same source of illumination, and that that source is a considerable distance away (since the Moon is approx 240k miles away, it must, by definition, be significantly farther than this).

How would that prove how far away the sun is or provide support for a Round Earth?

It proves the Sun to be much farther away than the Moon. If it was not, then the illumination would not match. Of itself, I'm not sure it forms a single definitive proof of a globe. But you shouldn't consider these things in isolation. The combination of many different forms of proof should be considered together. For instance, we see the Moon pass between us and the Sun at solar eclipses; therefore, the Sun is farther away than the Moon. We see Venus and Mercury transit over the Sun. Therefore, the Sun is farther away than both of these bodies at these points in their orbits. 


The moon and sun are often only seen during the day when they are on on opposite skies,

Incorrect. My sample 'ball held up to the Moon' photos were taken with the Moon just West of South, and with the Sun rising in the East. Roughly 90 degrees between.

Holding up a ball between them

Nobody is suggesting that. I said, once again, "hold up a ball IN FRONT OF the Moon"

In terms of your triangle, with Sun, Moon and Earth at the three points, you're holding the ball up along the side connecting Moon and Earth.

 would create some kind of gibbous moon, to which you can angle, rise above or below you, rotate slightly around, to try and match with the moon. It is totally invalid and does nothing to provide insight on the matter.

You have to sight along the line to the ball and the Moon simultaneously, so that you're looking at them from the same angle. OF COURSE, if you look at the ball from somewhere else, it will look different to the Moon. You can make the Moon phase look different as well, IF you look at it from a different angle.

Let's call the line between the ball and Moon the datum, or zero degrees.  Continue that line toward your eye. You should be looking as closely along that line as you can. If you then leave the ball where it is, and move yourself and your eye 20 degrees to one side (with respect to the ball, i.e. the angle is formed AT the ball), the phase on the ball WILL look different, but if you then moved yourself 20 degrees with respect to the Moon, the phase on the Moon would do exactly the same. But you'd have to go out into space to do this, since you can't move on Earth more than a fraction of a degree off this datum line (with the angle formed AT the Moon).

Would you care to address my posts from page 12 now? Specifically, reply #229
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 31, 2018, 11:04:43 AM
Here's mine from two consecutive days. First one was mid-afternoon, second was mid-morning. I failed to note exact positions for the first, but for the second, the Moon was slightly West of South, Sun rising in the East, with about 90 degrees between them.

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo (https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo) (EDIT - This one seems to have been 404'd - will repost soon)

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L (https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2018, 11:35:06 AM
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.

There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario meets our reality.

The readers can decide for themselves if an arrow in space would not point at what it is pointing at
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on July 31, 2018, 11:42:58 AM
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.

Is this why you're persistently refusing to actually do it?

It tells us that the Moon and the Ball are illuminated from the same light source. It tells us that the distance between Moon and Ball are very small compared to distance to Sun. If the Sun were close, or between the two, the illumination would differ.

I don't know what you mean by "unnatural perspective angles away from the sun" - are you referring back to that Moon phase photo with the arrow upon it? I tried to get you to progress with an experimental method on that, but you ignored my post. 

The readers can decide for themselves if arrows in space would not point at what they are pointing at

Be specific - arrows pointing where?



Do you agree that if you hold a ball up in front of you, in sunlight, that the centre of the illuminated hemisphere of the ball is directly aligned with the Sun?  Y/N
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 31, 2018, 04:20:41 PM
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.

There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario  meets our reality.

The readers can decide for themselves if arrows in space would not point at what they are pointing at
I understand that your intuition is telling you that the distance to the sun is a critical part of this issue. I would hope that you can recognize that intuition is often wrong and doesn't prove anything.

Furthermore, you MUST recognize that we are discussing how things work under RE, and in RE, the sun is 93 million miles away from us - It is not 1 mile away, nor is it unknown. We are testing the model as it stands, and the model say the sun averages around 93 million miles away. Nobody cares what happens when the sun is 1 mile away because we're not testing that. Nobody is asking us to determine the distance to the sun and moon here as those are already established under the RE model. We are testing them.

Under the existing RE model, the sun is 93 million miles away, and the moon is 240 thousand miles away. The sun is understood to be MUCH farther from us than the moon is. Because of this, the triangle between the observer, sun, and moon is very nearly a line. The edge of the triangle between the earth and the moon is a fraction of a percent of the length of the other edges. What this means is the angle of the light coming from the sun to the observer is very nearly the same as the light from the sun to the moon. To your eyes, you won't be able to tell the difference.

Because of this, the "hold up a ball" method (which you steadfastly refuse to even try) shows us almost exactly the same lighting as the moon. Hold up a ball and check it. If this works exactly like I've said it does, the lighting on the ball should match the lighting on the moon. If the lighting on the ball is very different, then you have proven that something in this RE model I have described is incorrect.

I'm telling you exactly what the RE model says. What do you suppose gives you the authority to claim that the RE model does not say what the RE model says? That's all we're talking about here. The RE model says the lighting on the ball should match the lighting of the moon very closely. Stop misrepresenting the RE model.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on July 31, 2018, 05:42:11 PM
Why doesn't the angle of the moon's phase change with that math when we place the sun one mile away from the earth and 92,960,000 miles away from the earth?

Because the angle is based on the relationship between the distances of the right triangle. As long as that relationship is to scale the distances don't matter.


Here are some examples:

A right triangle with two sides of one inch will ALWAYS have two 45° angles and one 90° angle.
A right triangle with two sides of one mile will ALWAYS have two 45° angles and one 90° angle.
A right triangle with two sides of one BILLION miles will ALWAYS have two 45° angles and one 90° angle.

That is why the angle does not change.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on August 01, 2018, 04:03:50 PM
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.

There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario  meets our reality.

The readers can decide for themselves if arrows in space would not point at what they are pointing at
I understand that your intuition is telling you that the distance to the sun is a critical part of this issue. I would hope that you can recognize that intuition is often wrong and doesn't prove anything.

Furthermore, you MUST recognize that we are discussing how things work under RE, and in RE, the sun is 93 million miles away from us - It is not 1 mile away, nor is it unknown. We are testing the model as it stands, and the model say the sun averages around 93 million miles away. Nobody cares what happens when the sun is 1 mile away because we're not testing that. Nobody is asking us to determine the distance to the sun and moon here as those are already established under the RE model. We are testing them.

Under the existing RE model, the sun is 93 million miles away, and the moon is 240 thousand miles away. The sun is understood to be MUCH farther from us than the moon is. Because of this, the triangle between the observer, sun, and moon is very nearly a line. The edge of the triangle between the earth and the moon is a fraction of a percent of the length of the other edges. What this means is the angle of the light coming from the sun to the observer is very nearly the same as the light from the sun to the moon. To your eyes, you won't be able to tell the difference.

Because of this, the "hold up a ball" method (which you steadfastly refuse to even try) shows us almost exactly the same lighting as the moon. Hold up a ball and check it. If this works exactly like I've said it does, the lighting on the ball should match the lighting on the moon. If the lighting on the ball is very different, then you have proven that something in this RE model I have described is incorrect.

I'm telling you exactly what the RE model says. What do you suppose gives you the authority to claim that the RE model does not say what the RE model says? That's all we're talking about here. The RE model says the lighting on the ball should match the lighting of the moon very closely. Stop misrepresenting the RE model.

This work for you Tom? At this point, I figure your options are:
a) Accept that the Moon Terminator Illusion is exactly what you've been told it is - an illusion. Just admit your mistake and concede that the RE model works really well to explain this particular phenomenon.
b) Find an error in the math.
c) Hold up a ball and show that the model does NOT work as we say it does.
d) Stick your fingers in your ears and keep on repeating, "this is NOT TRUE" over and over until you convince yourself that you are right.

I don't mean to rush you, but I'd like to wrap this up before I leave. You can let the thread fade into oblivion after I'm gone.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2018, 05:52:36 PM
Don’t go.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 02, 2018, 02:54:54 AM
Tom B understands why the moon's phase looks the way it does,
(taken from the other site)
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Nick, in that explanation the video is using the analogy of standing in the middle of a very long room or hallway. When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.


He just keeps making up imaginary or irrelevant factors in order to confuse himself.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on August 02, 2018, 04:16:05 AM
Tom B understands why the moon's phase looks the way it does,
(taken from the other site)
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Nick, in that explanation the video is using the analogy of standing in the middle of a very long room or hallway. When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.


He just keeps making up imaginary or irrelevant factors in order to confuse himself.
One might start to suspect that he is deliberately distracting the conversation in an effort to win a debate at the cost of the truth.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on August 03, 2018, 04:49:34 PM
Tom B understands why the moon's phase looks the way it does,
(taken from the other site)
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Nick, in that explanation the video is using the analogy of standing in the middle of a very long room or hallway. When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.


He just keeps making up imaginary or irrelevant factors in order to confuse himself.
One might start to suspect that he is deliberately distracting the conversation in an effort to win a debate at the cost of the truth.

I feel like the flat earth wiki should be updated.Instead of "Impossible" it should say "might be impossible"
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2018, 05:44:07 PM
According to that math from the paper, and as admitted by ICST, it doesn't matter how far away the sun is from the moon; the moon will point in the same direction nonetheless.

Consider the following diagram, which replaces the moon with a green arrow in space that points at the sun:

(https://i.imgur.com/I5fHvhY.png)

We can see clear away, that the distance between the observer and the sun does matter.

From: https://www.triangle-calculator.com/?what=sas

Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side

Side a: 93000000
Side b: 240000
Angle Y: 110 degrees

Angle A: 69.861°

Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side

Side a: 9300000
Side b: 240000
Angle Y: 110°

Angle A: 68.623°

Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side

Side a: 930000
Side b: 240000
Angle Y: 110°

Angle A: 57.438°

Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side

Side a: 93000
Side b: 240000
Angle Y: 110°

Angle A: 17.824°

Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side

Side a: 9300
Side b: 240000
Angle Y: 110°

Angle A: 2.058°


Yet, if we input 9300 miles into the math of that Author, the moon points in the same direction as if the distance was 93,000,000 miles. A green arrow will point the same way, no matter how far away the target is! This shows that the concept of the paper is fundamentally incorrect.


I understand that your intuition is telling you that the distance to the sun is a critical part of this issue. I would hope that you can recognize that intuition is often wrong and doesn't prove anything.

See above. You are claiming that a green arrow in space will not point at what it is pointing at. This is unjustified. Wonky math doesn't prove that concept.

Quote
Furthermore, you MUST recognize that we are discussing how things work under RE, and in RE, the sun is 93 million miles away from us - It is not 1 mile away, nor is it unknown. We are testing the model as it stands, and the model say the sun averages around 93 million miles away. Nobody cares what happens when the sun is 1 mile away because we're not testing that.

The math in the paper does not assume ANY values for the sun and the moon. The figures for the distance of the sun and moon appear nowhere in the math from the paper, until you attempted to do so in this thread.

Quote
Because of this, the "hold up a ball" method (which you steadfastly refuse to even try) shows us almost exactly the same lighting as the moon. Hold up a ball and check it. If this works exactly like I've said it does, the lighting on the ball should match the lighting on the moon. If the lighting on the ball is very different, then you have proven that something in this RE model I have described is incorrect.

The "hold-up the ball" method is subject to close-range perspective effects. Are you telling us that the moon is also close to the earth?

If the moon is far away, as in the RE model, then perspective should affect it less and less, since the observer isn't able to change distance ratio in viewing positions as much.

Quote
I'm telling you exactly what the RE model says. What do you suppose gives you the authority to claim that the RE model does not say what the RE model says? That's all we're talking about here.

The RE model says the lighting on the ball should match the lighting of the moon very closely. Stop misrepresenting the RE model.

What are you talking about? Show us where in text books about the Round Earth model where it says that all of the celestial bodies are projected onto a screen close above the observer's heads.

No one was ever taught that about the Round Earth model. That is something the author of the paper made up entirely.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2018, 05:54:36 PM
Tom B understands why the moon's phase looks the way it does,
(taken from the other site)
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Nick, in that explanation the video is using the analogy of standing in the middle of a very long room or hallway. When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.


He just keeps making up imaginary or irrelevant factors in order to confuse himself.

The Sun-Earth-Moon system in RET is not like "looking down a hallway." We can't use hallway perspective effects. The sun and the moon are far away, rotating around the observer, and the same distance from the observer throughout the day in RET. They are not changing distances from the observer like the points of a hallway ceiling is. Perspective matters very little.

The various points of a ceiling of a hall way are all at different distances from the observer. This is a significantly different scenario. In fact, this scenario more closely matches the Flat Earth model than the Round Earth model.

The people who are proposing the hallway perspective explanation are pretty much proposing that the close Sun and Moon model of the Flat Earth is correct.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 03, 2018, 08:16:19 PM
The "hold-up the ball" method is subject to close-range perspective effects.

Like what? What are these 'effects'?

Are you telling us that the moon is also close to the earth?

In comparison to the distance to the Sun, it's very close. And that's the point.

If the moon is far away, as in the RE model, then perspective should affect it less and less, since the observer isn't able to change distance ratio in viewing positions as much.

What ARE you talking about?

Show us where in text books about the Round Earth model where it says that all of the celestial bodies are projected onto a screen close above the observer's heads.

Nobody said anything about them being 'projected', but the celestial sphere is such a basic concept, I'm surprised you can't get to grips with it.

Imagine your Earth. It has a horizontal meridian (equator) and a vertical one (Greenwich Meridian). Any point in space can therefore be mapped in terms on angular difference from these meridians, along a line extended from the centre. If you have a celestial object above 0 latitude, 0 longitude, then its distance from the globe does not affect its co-ordinates. An object at 0N, 0W could be at 50 miles above the surface, or 50,000 - the co-ordinates would be the same. From the point of view of the observer, the objects could well all be at the same height, and the maps of the skies would still look the same. Only the intensity of each object would change.

With me?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2018, 08:30:53 PM
The "hold-up the ball" method is subject to close-range perspective effects.

Like what? What are these 'effects'?

If you have a ball suspended one foot above your head and walk three feet away from it, you can see much more of the ball than if it were suspended at 10,000 feet in the air and you walked three feet away from it. Can we agree with that?

This was a similar example given in another thread:

Quote
Rubix Cube Example

Imagine that we had a giant solved Rubix Cube suspended one foot above our heads. When we look up we can see its white underside. Now imagine that the Rubix Cube slowly recedes away from us into the distance. We will quickly see one of the colored sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. The white bottom of the cube will disappear and you will only see it from the colored side.

Now imagine that we have a giant solved Rubix Cube 10,000 feet above us. It is directly over us. When the Rubix Cube recedes away from us into the distance it will take much longer for us to see the colored side of the Rubix Cube and for the white underside to go away.

Agreed so far?

Since the ball is close to you, it is possible to shift your position slightly and see more of the ball or get it to form positions and angles than it would be if the ball were much further away. At closer distances there are greater perspective effects.

Quote from: Tumeni
In comparison to the distance to the Sun, it's very close. And that's the point.

Think about the RET geometry. The moon isn't "moving across a hallway ceiling" to where it is getting closer or further from you. It stays at the same distance from you at all times. So does the sun. In the hallway example every point on the ceiling is a different distance away from you. It's not a good analogy.

The moon barely changes position in relation to you when it passes overhead.

Quote from: Tumeni
Nobody said anything about them being 'projected'

Yes they did. The Authors of the paper in question say that celestial bodies are projected onto a plane above the observer. ICST made a video about that paper too. The moon and sun are projected onto a plane close above the observers head. It is asserted that it doesn't matter how far away the sun is from the earth. The phase of the moon would point in the same direction, no matter if the earth-sun distance were one mile or 93 million miles.

Would a green arrow suspended in the sky which points at the sun point in the same direction whether the sun were one foot away from the earth or 93 million miles away from the earth? According to the math of the paper, it would.

The Authors and ICST seem to assert that the RET geometry doesn't matter at all in the math. The paper does not even use the distance to the moon or the sun when coming up with the moon angles.

If the RET geometry doesn't matter in this math, and it doesn't matter if the sun is 3000 miles away or 93 million miles away, then it is not an RET model. It is simple as that. Whatever math is done to get the result (assuming that it even gives accurate results -- there is no verification), may apply to any model of the earth.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 03, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
If you have a ball suspended one foot above your head and walk three feet away from it, you can see much more of the ball than if it were 10,000 feet in the air and you walked three feet away from it. Can we agree with that?

Yes, but that has no bearing on what the ball experiment is intended to show. Perspective, and how much of each ball you can see, measured to the Nth degree, has no relevance. 

This was a similar example given in another thread: ...
Since the ball is close to you, it is possible to shift your position slightly and see more of the ball or get it to form positions and angles than it would be if the ball were much further away.

That doesn't matter. The amount you can see of each is irrelevant to the purpose of the experiment


The Authors of the paper in question say that celestial bodies are projected onto a plane above the observer.

And you don't get what is being referred to, do you? If you were to draw, describe or imagine a sphere around the Earth, a spherical plane, each object in the sky has a position, a set of co-ordinates on that imaginary sphere. These co-ordinates remain, regardless of the distance at which you imagine the sphere. This could be termed 'projection' onto that sphere, but c'mon, Tom, even school children can get this concept.

ICST made a video about that paper too. The moon and sun are projected onto a plane close above the observers head.

Or far above their head. The height of the spherical plane doesn't matter. The co-ordinates remain the same.

If you want to dispute the maths, take that up with those who presented the maths. I didn't, so I'm not going there. I'm coming at it from a different angle.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2018, 09:05:37 PM
That doesn't matter. The amount you can see of each is irrelevant to the purpose of the experiment

It is perfectly relevant. You can shift the perspective greater and easier when the ball is close than when it is far away. This shows that you need to use the RET geometry rather than a dumb hallway example. The moon isn't going down a hallway in RET. It is the same distance from the observer at all times. It doesn't radically change distances from you.

This is also why the "holding a ball close to you" experiment is invalid to tell us much. Perspective can change drastically, very easily, when things are close to you.

The "math" in the paper does not use the geometry of the RET model to get the result. ICST said it himself that it doesn't matter at all. Therefore it is not an RET model.

The fact that you guys are searching for perspective effects that would not happen in RET, and math that doesn't even use the RET geometry, shows quite clearly and indisputably that this cannot be explained at all.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on August 03, 2018, 09:55:04 PM
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.

There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario meets our reality.

The readers can decide for themselves if an arrow in space would not point at what it is pointing at

So, just on the ball experiment and why the light/shadow on it would be the same as on the moon.

Using that nifty calculator you provided, like you said with the moon 240000 miles away the angle to the sun works out to 69.861°, holding a ball 3 feet away in the direction of the moon the angle to the sun works out to 70°.

The ball experiment is valid and would not produce an altogether unnatural angle, only being off by 0.139°.   But maybe I'm missing something in what you are saying.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 03, 2018, 10:13:07 PM
That doesn't matter. The amount you can see of each is irrelevant to the purpose of the experiment

It is perfectly relevant. You can shift the perspective greater and easier when the ball is close than when it is far away.

If you move around, you're doing the experiment wrong.

This shows that you need to use the RET geometry rather than a dumb hallway example. The moon isn't going down a hallway in RET. It is the same distance from the observer at all times. It doesn't radically change distances from you.

I never said it did, and I've never used a hallway example. Are you confusing me with someone else?

This is also why the "holding a ball close to you" experiment is invalid to tell us much. Perspective can change drastically, very easily, when things are close to you.

If you're moving around enough to see changes on either the ball you're holding, or the Moon, you're doing the experiment wrong.


The "math" in the paper does not use the geometry of the RET model to get the result. ICST said it himself that it doesn't matter at all. Therefore it is not an RET model.

Take that up with ICST, then


The fact that you guys are searching for perspective effects that would not happen in RET, and math that doesn't even use the RET geometry, shows quite clearly and indisputably that this cannot be explained at all.

I stated in my previous post that perspective doesn't come into this experiment, why are you telling me I'm "searching for perspective effects? Could it be that you're just deliberately trying to muddy the waters?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2018, 10:18:04 PM
I don't see what the "hold up the ball" method tells us except that the moon is close to the observer like the ball is, as to be able to point into unnatural perspective angles away from the sun.

There certainly is something odd and artificial about this math where the tilt of the moon's phase does not change at all with scenarios where the sun is located one mile from the earth or 92 million miles from the earth. It seems hard to justify that this scenario meets our reality.

The readers can decide for themselves if an arrow in space would not point at what it is pointing at

So, just on the ball experiment and why the light/shadow on it would be the same as on the moon.

Using that nifty calculator you provided, like you said with the moon 240000 miles away the angle to the sun works out to 69.861°, holding a ball 3 feet away in the direction of the moon the angle to the sun works out to 70°.

The ball experiment is valid and would not produce an altogether unnatural angle, only being off by 0.139°.   But maybe I'm missing something in what you are saying.

Sure, I will agree with you on that. When you hold out a ball three feet in front of you, it will point at the sun. Pretty simple. Light comes from the sun to the ball, therefore the light on the ball is pointing at the sun.

If we switch out the 240000 miles with 3 feet  we will get about the same. 69 - 70 degrees in the calculator. I agree! The ball would point in the same general direction as a moon/green arrow in space does that points at the sun.

The problem, however, is that in the moon tilt "illusion" the moon doesn't point at the sun.

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-25c937f8e40c4e14b6cba1486c0ceabe-c)

This is just the first image I found via google search, but the moon will often look something like that. It can often be seen pointing away from the sun.

But how do we get the ball to simulate the moon terminator illusion and point away from the sun? The reason that it is possible is that the ball is really close to you and you can just hold it higher in the sky and duck down beneath it, rotate around it a bit if necessary, and angle it in a way that you can get the phase to form almost any shape and get the phase to point upwards OR downwards depending on whether you are above or below it. When the ball is closer to you it is susceptible to greater perspective effects, and finding a "match" doesn't really tell us much about what is going on.

With a ball that is held out from you, you have great freedom and range of motion to look at it from and position yourself. This is not the case with the RET system where the moon is the same distance away from you at all times, and you cannot position yourself around it.

The leap of "that explains it!" is fallacious. It does not explain anything.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on August 03, 2018, 10:36:10 PM
But how do we get the ball to simulate the moon terminator illusion and point away from the sun? The reason that it is possible is that the ball is really close to you and you can just hold it higher in the sky and duck down beneath it, rotate around it a bit if necessary, and angle it in a way that you can get the phase to form almost any shape and get the phase to point upwards OR downwards depending on whether you are above or below it. When the ball is closer to you it is susceptible to greater perspective effects, and finding a "match" doesn't really tell us much about what is going on.
You have to hold the ball in the direction of (along your site line to) the moon for the terminator to look exactly like on the moon, and it will.  If you move so that you can see the ball and the moon at the same time then you are changing the geometry between you and the ball, however, you wont be changing the geometry of the ball WRT the sun, so the angle of the terminator should not change.  Unless of course you move the ball such that you can no longer see the the terminator.

Are you getting at that this effect is not possible with sun 93M miles away?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2018, 10:41:45 PM
But how do we get the ball to simulate the moon terminator illusion and point away from the sun? The reason that it is possible is that the ball is really close to you and you can just hold it higher in the sky and duck down beneath it, rotate around it a bit if necessary, and angle it in a way that you can get the phase to form almost any shape and get the phase to point upwards OR downwards depending on whether you are above or below it. When the ball is closer to you it is susceptible to greater perspective effects, and finding a "match" doesn't really tell us much about what is going on.
You have to hold the ball in the direction of (along your site line to) the moon for the terminator to look exactly like on the moon, and it will.  If you move so that you can see the ball and the moon at the same time then you are changing the geometry between you and the ball, however, you wont be changing the geometry of the ball WRT the sun, so the angle of the terminator should not change.  Unless of course you move the ball such that you can no longer see the the terminator.

Are you getting at that this effect is not possible with sun 93M miles away?

The methodology that is being described for the "Do the Ball Experiment!" is literally the same as holding out a pencil parallel to the ground and then positioning your eyes (or a camera) so that the pencil seems to point upwards or downwards depending on how you are positioned in relation to it due to close-range perspective.

Right?

Can we agree that if the pencil is a fixed 10,000 feet away from you, that it will be much harder to see those close-range perspective effects?

Yes?

This is why the "ball experiment" is fallacious. It doesn't tell us anything about what is going on with the moon. We can't be expected to think that if we were pointing a pencil at the sun, that we could get it to angle away from the sun without taking advantage of close range perspective effects.

What follows is a questioning of the validity of this ball experiment. We already know that the illuminated portion of the ball will point at the sun -- like a pencil pointing at the sun. That we can get it to *not* point at the sun, like we can get a pencil to *not* point at the sun, by taking advantage of close range perspective effects, seems to be illegitimate.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: QED on August 04, 2018, 02:00:40 AM
There exist non-Euclidean geometries that do not use Euclid's postulates.

Consider Projective Geometry. It is a form of geometry that was created empirically, rather than based on a hypothetical  concept of a perfect universe. The perspective lines are finite, and meet in the distance. It is used in computer graphics and other areas.

There are a large number of other finite geometries as well, a number of which reject Elucid's parallel line postulate entirely.

To say for certain what should or should not happen in the distance would require thorough study of the world and how perspective behaves at various distances. Since the Ancient Greeks could not provide evidence for their model, that model can be discarded.

Lol, but then so can yours. Just about every claim you write is made without evidence.

There is more evidence for geometries that obey well-defined metrics than projective geometries. Don't get me wrong, PG is a perfectly fine mathematical inquiry. The issue is whether it adheres to the geometry of space-time.

Hint, hint: it does not.

You cannot define a 4-vector metric that explains, for example, GPS with PG. Go ahead. Start googling. I'll wait...

Unfortunately for you, Tom, I actually now about these things. So your nonsense won't hold water with me.

How sad for you.

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 04, 2018, 03:15:00 AM
Unfortunately for you, Tom, I actually now about these things.

I have no doubt that you do.

To ICanScienceThat:

If it doesn't matter what the distance to the bodies are or the geometry of the Round Earth Theory is in the equations then it may as well be a Flat Earth model. Rowbotham said that the celestial bodies were projected onto the amtoplane in Earth Not a Globe.

A projection onto a plane above the head of the observer is already built into our model. Since the math works regardless of the actual distance to the celestial bodies, and our model predicts such a projection, unlike the Round Earth model, did you just provide a Flat Earth model?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 04, 2018, 03:16:13 AM
The Sun-Earth-Moon system in RET is not like "looking down a hallway." We can't use hallway perspective effects.
Yes we can.  Like I said, you're just making up irrelevant or imaginary excuses.

Quote
The sun and the moon are far away, rotating around the observer, and the same distance from the observer throughout the day in RET. They are not changing distances from the observer like the points of a hallway ceiling is. Perspective matters very little.
Pick a fixed spot in the hallway.  There, that was easy.

Quote
In fact, this scenario more closely matches the Flat Earth model than the Round Earth model.
No, it doesn't.

Quote
The people who are proposing the hallway perspective explanation are pretty much proposing that the close Sun and Moon model of the Flat Earth is correct.
Nope.

Can we agree that if the pencil is a fixed 10,000 feet away from you, that it will be much harder to see those close-range perspective effects?
If the pencil is long enough (and a bigger diameter in order to be seen), then it will match what is seen of the moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 04, 2018, 03:35:00 AM
"Nah uh"? Convincing stuff.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 04, 2018, 03:53:08 AM
More convincing and honest than your stuff.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on August 04, 2018, 06:26:14 AM
Tom, I am completely convinced that you are deliberately trying to distract from the facts of the case. I explained it several times, and yet you act like you cannot understand. Or perhaps that you didn't see it. You keep coming back to the same tired incredulity. It really does not matter what you believe, Tom. The math is clear. It's also clear that your attempts to do some math are inconsistent with the physical situation being described here. The math is all here for you. It's been done over and over. Your math is wrong, and you know it.

In your little diagram, you are calculating angle A. The angle A in that diagram means literally nothing to the moon tilt illusion. I explained this already, so acting like you didn't already know this is dishonest. If you'd like to say you didn't read it or didn't understand it, I would be willing to accept an apology, but it's right there. I'm not going to quote it - it was a long post. In short, the observer is looking directly down the edge of the triangle. To the observer's point of view, the green arrow is pointing to the right. the angle A in your diagram is how much the green arrow is pointing towards or away from the observer, and that is NOT the tilt angle of the moon.

After I pointed that out, I also pointed out that your argument is 100% irrelevant. We are talking about RE here, and in RE, we know the distances to the sun and moon. You don't get to just change them to try to break the math. The math works just fine even if you do try that, but that's not relevant. If the math only worked when using the correct distances to the bodies, that would be all it would need to do. And that means, your argument is nothing more than a distraction.

You claim that the ball test is invalid because of some excuses you are trying to make about the distances between the bodies. These excuses are nothing more than complete B.S. You use your diagram with your green arrow to try to refute the actual math that I showed you. Then you're trying to expand that false math into a greater logical fallacy that "the distances must matter, so if the ball isn't at the same distance at the moon, then that must matter as well." Your math was false, and your logic is even falser.

No more B.S. Plain and simple.
The sun is 93,000,000 miles away. The moon is 239,000 miles away. The angle this creates is 0.15 degrees at a maximum! Hold up a ball, and the light from the sun will hit that ball at an angle that differs from the angle on the moon by a whopping 0.15 degrees. No more B.S. Stop trying to trick people with your fake math and broken logic. All that matters is right here. Hold up a ball and prove us wrong, or admit that we've been right the entire time.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 04, 2018, 07:02:17 AM
The problem, however, is that in the moon tilt "illusion" the moon doesn't point at the sun.

IMG included

This is just the first image I found via google search, but the moon will often look something like that. It can often be seen pointing away from the sun.

Apparently. That's the 'illusion', though ...

But how do we get the ball to simulate the moon terminator illusion and point away from the sun?

You could try it for yourself, on different days, at different times, and document your results, couldn't you? Rather than dragging this out with talk of Rubik's Cubes, hallways, and such. Actually do what we've been encouraging you to do for weeks.

Do this at timed intervals, monitor how the aspect changes as the sun sets, and see how, when you can see the sun, the phase of the Moon follows it. Then extrapolate from that after the sun goes down.

The reason that it is possible is that the ball is really close to you and you can just hold it higher in the sky and duck down beneath it, rotate around it a bit if necessary, and angle it in a way that you can get the phase to form almost any shape and get the phase to point upwards OR downwards depending on whether you are above or below it. When the ball is closer to you it is susceptible to greater perspective effects, and finding a "match" doesn't really tell us much about what is going on.

I've explained this more than once. If you're doing this, you're doing it wrong. It has been explained to you multiple times what you need to do. One more time; go out in the day when you can see both sun and moon in the sky. Hold your ball at arm's length in front of the Moon. Sight along your arm so you can see both Moon and Ball close together. If you do this, you CANNOT be moving around, nor looking from different angles. There's no movement involved. Look back at my previous posts to see what it should look like.
 
With a ball that is held out from you, you have great freedom and range of motion to look at it from and position yourself.

... but you should not be moving around, IF you're doing the experiment the right way, Why do you insist on doing it the wrong way?

This is not the case with the RET system where the moon is the same distance away from you at all times, and you cannot position yourself around it.

So you mirror your view of the Moon in the experiment by holding the ball between you and the Moon, and sighting along the imaginary line between the two. Not by moving around.  No?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 04, 2018, 07:07:31 AM
The methodology that is being described for the "Do the Ball Experiment!" is literally the same as holding out a pencil parallel to the ground and then positioning your eyes (or a camera) so that the pencil seems to point upwards or downwards depending on how you are positioned in relation to it due to close-range perspective.

No, it is not. That is not the methodology that anyone has described, except you. The ball should be held between your eye or camera and the Moon, and you should be sighting along the continuation of the imaginary line connecting ball and Moon, but such that you can see both. If you were exactly on the line, the ball would cover the Moon.

There's no movement involved. The only place to look from is along this line. It's not an experiment in motion, it's an experiment to derive a static viewpoint from one observation position, and one only

Please revisit post #172 in this thread, and those which followed. Here's my photos from consecutive days;

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L

See how I'm sighting along the line between ball and Moon? Not looking at the ball from any other angle? Yes? No?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 04, 2018, 08:02:09 AM
Sure, I will agree with you on that. When you hold out a ball three feet in front of you, it will point at the sun. Pretty simple. Light comes from the sun to the ball, therefore the light on the ball is pointing at the sun.

So, do you agree that if you look along the imaginary line between Moon and Ball, that you're looking along one side of a triangle?

The sun, moon, and you are at the three points, and you're looking along the side connecting you and the Moon?

Y/N?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 04, 2018, 08:30:45 AM
When you hold up a ball out in the daylight, the lit area of the ball is pointing at the sun, correct? There is no way to get around it. The ball is pointing at the sun.

Any disagreement there?

How, then is it possible to get the light on the ball to point away from the sun?

The only way to do it is to create a close range perspective effect; very similar to what I have described earlier. Slight movements around the ball will create varying perspective effects at close quarters. When the ball is far away, your slight movements won't affect the perspective so much.

There is no other way to get it to point away from the sun. It is not some special property of the light direction. It's a close range perspective effect.

The whole "ball experiment" thing is a load, and does not tell us anything except of close range perspective.

In the Round Earth Theory, there is not much room for perspective effects. The moon and the sun are the same distance away from the observer at all times. They are very far away and are not changing their distance from the observer, such as points on the ceiling of a hallway. There is no way for the moon's phase to continuously rotate as it does throughout the night, or for the phase to be affected by perspective.

In the Flat Earth Theory there is room for perspective effects. The sun and moon are projected onto a plane above the observer, just as ICanScienceThat and the author of the paper in question described. Since the math of that model doesn't really care about the distance to the moon at all, as admitted by ICanScienceThat several times in this thread, and in his video (I can quote that if asked), it can be applied to any model.

In order for it to be a Round Earth model, the math would have to care about the Round Earth distances. Since it does not care, it is not a Round Earth model.

Unless ICanScienceThat comes back and says that the math does care about RET, then it's case closed, as far as I am concerned. It is not a round earth model at all.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 04, 2018, 09:04:04 AM
Tom, I am completely convinced that you are deliberately trying to distract from the facts of the case. I explained it several times, and yet you act like you cannot understand. Or perhaps that you didn't see it. You keep coming back to the same tired incredulity. It really does not matter what you believe, Tom. The math is clear.

Yes. The math is clear. It does not care about the distance to the sun, as you admit yourself.

Therefore, it is not a Round Earth model and it is hard to argue that it is. It may as well be a Flat Earth or a Concave Earth model, since it does not care about the Round Earth Geometry.

The angle I provided is actually based on RET geometry, and the geometry of the scene in question. Why not do that to explain that moon tilt illusion? Use the geometry of the scene!

You won't because you can't, and the authors of the paper could bot do it either, hence the odd math that doesn't care about the sun and moon distances.

You have a losing argument, and anyone can connect those dots together.

Quote
In your little diagram, you are calculating angle A. The angle A in that diagram means literally nothing to the moon tilt illusion.

The angle I calculated does mean something to the Round Earth Theory. Its the angle that a green arrow in space points at the sun. Aka the moon. The green arrow always points to the sun in the triangle math, no matter the distance to the sun, and never away from it.

The "moon tilt illusion" cannot be explained in the Round Earth Theory, and you have not provided a model that provides any explanatory power for the Round Earth Geometry. You said it yourself. The math doesn't care about the distances.

Quote
I explained this already, so acting like you didn't already know this is dishonest. If you'd like to say you didn't read it or didn't understand it, I would be willing to accept an apology, but it's right there.

You appear to be in denial about the matter. It is not a Round Earth model if it does not care about the Round Earth Geometry.

Quote
After I pointed that out, I also pointed out that your argument is 100% irrelevant. We are talking about RE here, and in RE, we know the distances to the sun and moon. You don't get to just change them to try to break the math. The math works just fine even if you do try that, but that's not relevant. If the math only worked when using the correct distances to the bodies, that would be all it would need to do. And that means, your argument is nothing more than a distraction.

What are you talking about? You have stated several times that the geometry of RET doesn't matter to the math. The sun can be one foot from the earth or 100 billion miles from it, and it gives the same result.

It is not a "Round Earth Model" if it does not use the Round Earth Model.

Quote
No more B.S. Plain and simple.
The sun is 93,000,000 miles away. The moon is 239,000 miles away. The angle this creates is 0.15 degrees at a maximum! Hold up a ball, and the light from the sun will hit that ball at an angle that differs from the angle on the moon by a whopping 0.15 degrees. No more B.S. Stop trying to trick people with your fake math and broken logic. All that matters is right here. Hold up a ball and prove us wrong, or admit that we've been right the entire time.

The sun is pointing at the ball, right? The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is a close range perspective effect. What other explanation do you have if the ball were to point away from the sun?

If I do get the ball to point away from the sun, what does that tell us? The ball is affected by a close range perspective effect. Since the Round Earth model isn't affected by perspective, the Round Earth model cannot be a reflection of what is happening to the ball.

The mathematical model you showed is not a Round Earth Model. It does not use Round Earth Distances.

Shout out your positon ten times: "It doesn't matter that the Round Earth Geometry is not being used, it's a Round Earth model!!" Maybe you will see the ridiculousness of that statement.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 04, 2018, 10:50:23 AM
When you hold up a ball out in the daylight, the lit area of the ball is pointing at the sun, correct? There is no way to get around it. The ball is pointing at the sun. Any disagreement there? How, then is it possible to get the light on the ball to point away from the sun? The only way to do it is to create a close range perspective effect; very similar to what I have described earlier. Slight movements around the ball will create varying perspective effects at close quarters.

OK, find a ball, go out in the day when you can see both Sun and Moon, and show us the effects you are talking about. I/we have shown you how you should be doing the ball-moon experiment, but you keep wanting to deviate from the way it should be done.

There are no perspective effects if you sight along the line between ball and moon.


There is no other way to get it to point away from the sun. It is not some special property of the light direction. It's a close range perspective effect.

But you just said it "points at the sun" .... if you think you can get it to point away, do it for real, with a ball in the daytime, and photograph it

The whole "ball experiment" thing is a load, and does not tell us anything except of close range perspective.

There's no perspective involved, if you do the experiment correctly. If you want to SHOW us all this perspective, get out there and photograph it for us
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 04, 2018, 01:21:00 PM
Tom,

If this terminator illusion thing isn't really an illusion and the light on the moon isn't being cast by the sun, then that applies whether the earth is round or flat. Yeah?

So, is this convincing proof (for you) that the moon must be self-luminescent?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 04, 2018, 03:48:59 PM
How, then is it possible to get the light on the ball to point away from the sun?
You answered yourself long ago.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.

Perspective.  There you have it.  Just like in the hallway, it only looks like it's pointed away from the sun.

Quote
There is no other way to get it to point away from the sun. It is not some special property of the light direction.
Indeed

Quote
It's a close range perspective effect.
Fixed your comment to make it accurate.

Here's the thing Tom, if you draw a triangle (or in this case an obtuse triangle) and scale it up or down, it's still going to have the same shape.
Stop confusing yourself.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 04, 2018, 05:19:33 PM
Great. Since we agree that the illuminated portion of the ball is pointing at the sun, the only way to get the ball to not point at the sun is to do so by a perspective effect.

Now use the Round Earth geometry to show that the moon is affected by perspective in that manner, as to cause a perspective effect.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 04, 2018, 07:38:33 PM
Great. Since we agree that the illuminated portion of the ball is pointing at the sun, the only way to get the ball to not point at the sun is to do so by a perspective effect.

Now use the Round Earth geometry to show that the moon is affected by perspective in that manner, as to cause a perspective effect.

We need to start from Reply #229 again. I asked you a question there to start this off, and you didn't respond.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on August 04, 2018, 08:34:47 PM
Great. Since we agree that the illuminated portion of the ball is pointing at the sun, the only way to get the ball to not point at the sun is to do so by a perspective effect.

Now use the Round Earth geometry to show that the moon is affected by perspective in that manner, as to cause a perspective effect.
We have a saying at my house. "Once is an accident. Twice is careless. The third time was on purpose."

Tom, what you're doing is clearly on purpose. You know very well that the RE model explains this phenomenon perfectly. You're trying to make it sound like it doesn't because you probably have some followers who trust you, and you're trying to keep them convinced them that the Earth is flat. I cannot say why you do this, but it is dishonest. For their sakes, I hope anyone who has fallen for your tricks can see how dishonest you are being.

You asked for the math, and I did the math. Don't act like I did the math wrong. I worked the math, and it was correct. You have not found any error anywhere in it. You have tried to confuse the issue with your own math, but the errors in your math have been pointed out.

As I told you before, the RE geometry says that the lighting on a ball in front of you (held up in front of the moon) is virtually identical to the lighting on the moon. That much is perfectly clear. It doesn't matter how much you try to confuse the issue with nonsense. RE says the lighting on the ball is almost the same as the lighting on the moon. That's what RE says. If the lighting on the ball is the same as the lighting on the moon, and the lighting on the ball is obviously coming from the sun... guess what... the RE model is proven accurate once again.

Since you clearly cannot work the math correctly, I offer you this challenge. Choose any place, time and date past or future. We'll look up the positions of the sun and moon for that combination and plug those numbers into the formula for the moon's tilt angle. (I'll work the math for you.) We will then compare that tilt angle with mooncalc.org and stellarium to see if the RE predictions all line up. Then you will provide a photograph of the moon taken at the specified time and place, and we'll see just how good the RE prediction was.

So let's have it Tom. Name the place and time where RE is unable to predict the tilt angle of the moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: QED on August 04, 2018, 09:07:06 PM
Unfortunately for you, Tom, I actually now about these things.

I have no doubt that you do.

To ICanScienceThat:

If it doesn't matter what the distance to the bodies are or the geometry of the Round Earth Theory is in the equations then it may as well be a Flat Earth model. Rowbotham said that the celestial bodies were projected onto the amtoplane in Earth Not a Globe.

A projection onto a plane above the head of the observer is already built into our model. Since the math works regardless of the actual distance to the celestial bodies, and our model predicts such a projection, unlike the Round Earth model, did you just provide a Flat Earth model?

So I am trying to make sense of your reply, but it is not really intelligible from a scientific point of view. Rowbotham can say whatever he wants, but he provides no solid, reproducible evidence for such claims.

Your projection idea easily fails a basic test of optics and shadows that the greeks could accomplish thousands of years ago. Did you know that?

Yes, that's right, your theory is over 2000 years behind modern thought, and has about as much predictive power as Scientology.

Your model does not predict a projection, as that facet is built into the model a priori.

Even though PG exists mathematically it does not describe our Universe. THAT is the empirical conclusion we have arrived at. Very easy tests can demonstrate this -- like GPS.

I have a question for you, Thomas. How much money do earn by promoting this FE business?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on August 04, 2018, 10:17:12 PM
The methodology that is being described for the "Do the Ball Experiment!" is literally the same as holding out a pencil parallel to the ground and then positioning your eyes (or a camera) so that the pencil seems to point upwards or downwards depending on how you are positioned in relation to it due to close-range perspective.

Right?
Not really.   in this case if the ball is 2 or 3 feet away from you it going to look essentially that same as if it was 30, 300, 3000, 240,000 feet/miles away etc.  If you bring it down to eye level then you will see that a line normal to the terminator does indeed point at the sun.  Once it's 3 feet way it going to look essentially teh same as if it were a bigger ball 240K miles away.

Quote
Can we agree that if the pencil is a fixed 10,000 feet away from you, that it will be much harder to see those close-range perspective effects?

Yes?
Sure.

Quote
This is why the "ball experiment" is fallacious. It doesn't tell us anything about what is going on with the moon. We can't be expected to think that if we were pointing a pencil at the sun, that we could get it to angle away from the sun without taking advantage of close range perspective effects.
No, see above.

Quote
What follows is a questioning of the validity of this ball experiment. We already know that the illuminated portion of the ball will point at the sun -- like a pencil pointing at the sun. That we can get it to *not* point at the sun, like we can get a pencil to *not* point at the sun, by taking advantage of close range perspective effects, seems to be illegitimate.
Again, this is not a close-range perspective thing, unless, as I detailed above, you get very, very close.

Here is a modification of the experiment.  Start with the ball at eye level,  Note that a line normal to the terminator points at the sun.  Insert a pencil into the ball along that line such that the pencil is normal to the terminator and points at the sun.  Move the ball toward the moon keeping the pencil normal to the terminator.  Not that this action required that you do not change the orientation of the ball as you move it. At 3 feet away, note that the pencil is still normal to the terminator and that it no longer points at the sun and in fact is parallel to a line normal to the moon's terminator, and that the terminator on the ball and the moon look essentially the same.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 04, 2018, 10:53:42 PM
Bill, the "Ball Experiment" is a close range perspective effect. There is no way to get the ball to not point at the sun without taking advantage of close range perspective effects.

Take a look at this animation:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/QLNnW3c2d2iGEPIICh/giphy.gif)

The Ball is pointing at the sun, correct?

The only way to get it to point upwards and away from the sun is to take advantage of close range perspective effects. This is what I am being asked to do.

If the white paper in the above animation were a transparency, it would be possible to do exactly what is done in the animation with the moon in the background and try to match it.

Why am I being asked to do that? It shows nothing about what is occurring to the moon or anything about the nature of the occurrence.

It will need to be shown that perspective effects can affect the geometry of the Round Earth model. Unlike drastic differences in distance ratios at close range; when something is far away from you, it is harder for those close range perspective effects to occur. You would need to travel significant distances to make that happen, in ratio with the new distances.

A pencil 10,000 feet away from the observer isn't going to be subject to close range perspective as easily as a pencil held an arms length away. <-- I believe that you agreed with this.

Under the Round Earth Theory both the sun and moon are far away and are at equal distance from you at all times. They do not change distances radically from you, as the camera changes in relation to the ball in the above animation as compared to the distance to the ball.

[In the Flat Earth model the Sun and Moon do change distance radically from you and in relation to their altitudes, however]

It should be shown that the geometry of the Round Earth model can create such perspective effects.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 04, 2018, 11:21:03 PM
Also, one important point, the moon does change angle when it gets closer to the sun and changes its elevation above the horizon. It is not stuck in one permanent perspective angle, as Bill seemes to imply.

From the paper we were talking about: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/dBeuy9C.png)

Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on August 05, 2018, 01:06:41 AM
Tom, your dishonesty continues to astound me. You continue to post as if what you were saying meant anything when it's nothing more than gibberish. You simultaneously ignore each of my key points.

You keep trying to convince people that there's something wrong with the RE model, but it works perfectly. We tell you that it matches the ball. You cannot deny that it matches the ball. Instead you try to convince people that matching the ball doesn't matter. How about you tell us, "why does the light on the moon match the light on the ball?"
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on August 05, 2018, 01:09:38 AM
Also, one important point, the moon does change angle when it gets closer to the sun and changes its elevation above the horizon. It is not stuck in one permanent perspective angle, as Bill seemes to imply.
I resent the intent of this straw man Tom.  I never suggested or 'implied' any such thing.  I honestly don't think you even inferred it, you're just using it to introduce a point you think you can argue better.  However, this changes nothing.  Neither does that idiotic video you posted above.  It is just yet another straw man and has not the tiniest thing to do with the situation we were talking about.

In that inane video you can see quite clearly the lines look parallel 3 feet away.  It's not until you have the drawing at camera level and an inch or two away do we see the perspective effect you are talking about - which still has nothing to do with our discussion.  Not whatsoever.  If anything, it weakens your position considerably.  You honestly can't expect me to believe you think that video and what we were talking about are related.  If you do, the implications are not very flattering to you.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on August 05, 2018, 01:15:32 AM
Also, one important point, the moon does change angle when it gets closer to the sun and changes its elevation above the horizon. It is not stuck in one permanent perspective angle, as Bill seemes to imply.
I resent the intent of this straw man Tom.  I never suggested or 'implied' any such thing.  I honestly don't think you even inferred it, you're just using it to introduce a point you think you can argue better.  However, this changes nothing.  Neither does that idiotic video you posted above.  It is just yet another straw man and has not the tiniest thing to do with the situation we were talking about.

In that inane video you can see quite clearly the lines look parallel 3 feet away.  It's not until you have the drawing at camera level and an inch or two away do we see the perspective effect you are talking about - which still has nothing to do with our discussion.  Not whatsoever.  If anything, it weakens your position considerably.  You honestly can't expect me to believe you think that video and what we were talking about are related.  If you do, the implications are not very flattering to you.
Actually that video shows the terminator illusion just fine. And distance does NOT matter.

Test it out.
1) Draw or choose a straight, horizontal line. It doesn't matter how big or how small. Use a pencil on your desk or a contrail in the sky.
2) Align your view such that you are below it with the line points over your right shoulder.
3) Which way does the line point now? It's pointing over your right shoulder, so it points UP and to the right. That's right, your HORIZONTAL line points UP.
4) Now get closer. Now get farther. How does distance affect the angle of the line? Not at all. Distance is not a factor. The line points over your right shoulder because you've aligned your view that way.

In the video with the prairie dog, it isn't the distance causing that effect, it is the angle.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 05, 2018, 02:01:16 AM
... Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?

A picture you posted:
(https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/art%3A10.3758%2Fs13414-014-0767-3/MediaObjects/13414_2014_767_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Moon to the Southeast: 239,000 miles away.
Sun to the West, over 120° in another direction, 93,000,000 miles away ...390x further.

Close up. Far away. Doesn't matter. Scale that.

Make the moon the size of a dime. (Borrow the one hiding the elephant.)
It's distance from an observer on earth at that scale is 1.14m (3'9")
The distance to the sun at that scale is 442.3m (or a 1/4 of a mile)


The big numbers don't change the relationships. You can use small numbers too. That's what scale models do.

Looking at something 3-4 feet away, and then turning 90° or so and looking at somethig a quarter mile away, and you want to tell us perspective isn't involved?

Now, if you take away any depth perception cues, with the sun at an angular size nearly identical to the moon, your brain (my brain, all our brains) want to imagine a line straight across the sky from that westerly view to the southerly or south-easterly view. But that's wrong. That's the illusion, because you aren't taking depth into account. It's not intuitive to do so. You have to remember that there's a vast difference between the earth-moon distnce and the earth-sun difference.


But that's not the whole story. Throw in different azimuth perspectives and you've got an optical illusion. You are taking in a panoramic image when you look in one direction, note the location of the sun and the turn 90° or more and note the location of the moon. If you take a picture of that, you're projecting such a bowed perspective onto a flat surface. That's what this picture is that you found to kick this off:

(https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/art%3A10.3758%2Fs13414-014-0767-3/MediaObjects/13414_2014_767_Fig3_HTML.gif)

If you want to rectify that so it appears as a straight line in 2D , then the straight line of the earth horizon will bow. Something has to become distorted to make that moon/sun path a "straight" line on a picture.

Truth is, it IS a straight line already. It's just that you're brain fools you into thinking it's not. Why? Because you don't perceive the affects of perspective. You don't perceive that the sun is such a grand factor further away than the moon, along a different line of bearing.

I posted this earlier and you either ignored it or didn't understand it.

Here are two 2D projections of the moon-sun in an arrangement that produces the illusion that you say 'round earth theory' has no explanation for.

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/208g1mh.jpg)

Both of these are correct. The bottom one is presented with the horizon as a straight line on the 2D projection. But that makes the straight line of the sun to moon look like an arc. It's straight in 3D real life, but in the 2D image (or in our brain when looking at a sky without depth cues), it makes an arc. If we rectify that to make the sun-moon line straight, the way you want to think it should be, the horizon bows into an arc. It IS possible to rectify both to be straight, but something's got to give. You could distort the sky where there is no detail and be happy, but if any straight-line thing were to be projected into that space, IT would appear distorted.

Like it or not, it's an illusion. And it's explicable. Much better, in fact, than the "perspective" explanation you had for how that illusion could be explained in a flat earth model with sun and moon at locations and distance NOT 390x different from each other.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 05, 2018, 02:38:28 AM
Tom, your dishonesty continues to astound me. You continue to post as if what you were saying meant anything when it's nothing more than gibberish. You simultaneously ignore each of my key points.

Here are your key points:

- You found some math which does not use the geometry of the Earth and Moon model, and then present it as a Round Earth model. We can put any values for the distance of the sun (and likely the moon -- the math in the original paper has no distances specified) and get the same result. You are not even denying this. We can put in the distance values for the Flat Earth or Concave Earth and get the same result.

What does this tell us?

- You keep insisting on some "ball experiment" which is clearly using close range perspective to get the ball to point away from the sun.

"Yup, that's what's happening to the moon in the sky. Proof!" <-- Deceptive argument

Show that this would happen in the Round Earth model specifically.

Quote
How about you tell us, "why does the light on the moon match the light on the ball?"

Probably because the earth is flat.

Look at all of the arguments that have been posted here. The "hallway example," the "close range ball experiment" example. An example where the sun and moon are projected onto a plane a short distance from the observer...

All of these are Flat Earth Explanations.

Only in a Flat Earth model do the bodies change distance radically from you. Only the Flat Earth model has the celestial bodies projected onto the atmoplane above the observer.

So, thank you for contributing to the Flat Earth research.

None of the examples and descriptions given are of a Round Earth model. If you try to use what the Round Earth model says is happening, it doesn't work.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on August 05, 2018, 03:50:42 AM
I have only 1 point. I will break it down (again):
a) If you hold up a ball in the sunlight, you can easily see the angle the sun hits the ball.
b) The moon is a sphere, and it is lit by the same sun that is hitting the ball.
c) The moon is far away compared to the ball, but the sun is so much farther away, the lighting will match almost perfectly.
d) People have trouble understanding the geometry of the sun's light on the moon when the 2 are far apart in the sky, but the ball makes it pretty obvious.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 05, 2018, 04:09:31 AM
Example:
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/11kuvj6.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2018, 04:50:39 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
You found some math which does not use the geometry of the Earth and Moon model, and then present it as a Round Earth model.

This is gibberish. There is no math of the RE model.  There is geometry, and it can be used to describe the relationships of the sun, moon and earth with exquisite detail.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 05, 2018, 06:26:18 AM
Bill, the "Ball Experiment" is a close range perspective effect. There is no way to get the ball to not point at the sun without taking advantage of close range perspective effects.

Nobody is suggesting the ball experiment should get the ball to point away from the sun except you. Nobody suggests that should form part of the experiment except you. As I said earlier, if you're trying to do this, you're doing the experiment wrong.


Take a look at this animation:

Why are you citing animations? Why aren't you taking a tennis, base or billiard ball outside and doing this for yourself, rather than trying to propose your variation on it?

The only way to get it to point upwards and away from the sun is to take advantage of close range perspective effects. This is what I am being asked to do.

No, it will not point away from the sun. The centre of the illuminated portion of the ball will always point toward the sun. You cannot change that.

If you think you can get it to look as though it is pointing away from the Sun, do the experiment yourself and show us your result. If the result has you looking at the ball without the moon also visible immediately behind the ball, you're doing the experiment wrong. That is not the methodology of the experiment.

Why am I being asked to do that? It shows nothing about what is occurring to the moon or anything about the nature of the occurrence.

Yes, it does.

It will need to be shown that perspective effects can affect the geometry of the Round Earth model. Unlike drastic differences in distance ratios at close range; when something is far away from you, it is harder for those close range perspective effects to occur. You would need to travel significant distances to make that happen, in ratio with the new distances.

Yes, you can move around your ball, but you can't move around the Moon to the same degree. Got it. That's the whole point of the methodology described. To align your sight line with the ball along the same sight line that connects you and the moon. If you move around, you're not looking at the ball along this sight line

The ball should be held between your eye or camera and the Moon, and you should be sighting along the continuation of the imaginary line connecting ball and Moon, but such that you can see both. If you were exactly on the line, the ball would cover the Moon.

There's no movement involved. The only place to look from is along this line. It's not an experiment in motion, it's an experiment to derive a static viewpoint from one observation position, and one only


Under the Round Earth Theory both the sun and moon are far away and are at equal distance from you at all times. They do not change distances radically from you, as the camera changes in relation to the ball in the above animation as compared to the distance to the ball.

That's not the methodology for this experiment. The camera should not change in relation to the ball. See my italics above.

It should be shown that the geometry of the Round Earth model can create such perspective effects.

Why? There's no perspective involved, IF you do the experiment the right way
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 05, 2018, 06:39:18 AM
You keep insisting on some "ball experiment" which is clearly using close range perspective to get the ball to point away from the sun.

No. No. No. 

No.

NOBODY is suggesting this except you. Everybody else is telling you to do the ball experiment BECAUSE the illuminated portion of the ball points AT the Sun. That it matches the illuminated portion of the Moon, but only IF you do the experiment properly, and look at both along the same sight line.

You keep trying to do something else with the experiment, but if you did that, you would be doing the experiment wrong.


"Yup, that's what's happening to the moon in the sky. Proof!" <-- Deceptive argument

If you see the illuminated portion of the ball and the moon match exactly, how can you conclude that what's illuminating the moon is any different from what's illuminating the ball?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 05, 2018, 06:49:32 AM
The problem, however, is that in the moon tilt "illusion" the moon doesn't point at the sun.

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-25c937f8e40c4e14b6cba1486c0ceabe-c)

This is just the first image I found via google search, but the moon will often look something like that. It can often be seen pointing away from the sun.

So ... where did you find it? I can see the picture link, but where's the commentary to go with it?

There's a number of occurrences, but which one are you referring to in particular?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on August 05, 2018, 02:29:23 PM
From the paper we were talking about: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/dBeuy9C.png)

Tom, you have already shown that you could not possibly understand the math in that paper, so I have no idea why your trying to quote stuff from it.  What is shown in this diagram and the other diagrams in that paper are only possible with the accepted RE model of the solar system.  This topic is about whether or not the full moon was possible on a flat earth, and you have, yet again, dragged if off course though a series of straw man positions.   By inspection of the current flat earth model you can easily see that a full moon is not possible on one of those flat earths.

Please explain to us how you can have a full moon on a flat earth.  You will need to explain what keeps the moon in it's motion.  For bonus points, further explain the diagram of moon phases you posted would work on a flat earth.

Quote
Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on August 05, 2018, 02:34:25 PM
The problem, however, is that in the moon tilt "illusion" the moon doesn't point at the sun.

lol how would you know?  you've never tried to find out empirically if it does or not.  you just keep looking at images and guessing at how you think things ought to look.  nice rationalizations.  i mean ffs you have your own private thread dedicated to what a brilliant empiricist you are; why not at least pretend to actually be an empiricist?

for the record again, the moon absolutely does "point" at the sun.  take a piece of string and hold it taut.  align it to be perpendicular to the moon's terminator.  follow the line to where it points.  it always points at the sun.  100% of the time.

this entire thread is based on a falsehood.  arguing about perspective is pointless.  just make your own straight line and hold it up to the moon.  i say it points at the sun; you say it doesn't.  why not do the experiment to find out for yourself?  what do you have to lose?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 06, 2018, 11:17:54 PM

Take a look at this animation:

https://media.giphy.com/media/QLNnW3c2d2iGEPIICh/giphy.gif
I would also like to point out that you are intentionally trying to  deceive people with that animation.  Those camera movements are not necessary.  It could have been seen had the camera simply been lowered and panned up and to the left.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 07, 2018, 07:50:49 PM
Quote
Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)

The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.

How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on August 08, 2018, 05:40:45 PM
Quote
Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)

The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. Why aren't you listening? We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.

How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?

We have went over this many many times. Trigonometry is a math largely based on ratios. If the ratio is the same then the distances don't matter. In terms of the degree of the angles, SIN, COS, and TAN.

A right triangle with opposite sides length of one inch and an adjacent side of 3 inches will have the same angles as a right triangle with an opposite side of 1 billion miles and an adjacent side of 3 billion miles.

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2018, 07:07:28 PM
Quote
Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)

The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. Why aren't you listening? We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.

How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?

We have went over this many many times. Trigonometry is a math largely based on ratios. If the ratio is the same then the distances don't matter. In terms of the degree of the angles, SIN, COS, and TAN.

A right triangle with opposite sides length of one inch and an adjacent side of 3 inches will have the same angles as a right triangle with an opposite side of 1 billion miles and an adjacent side of 3 billion miles.

It's not based on ratios. ICanScienceThat said that it doesn't matter if the sun is one foot away from the earth or 93 million miles away from the earth. The 238900 mile distant moon points in the same direction regardless. The math is entirely disconnected from the distance of the celestial bodies.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: MCToon on August 08, 2018, 08:44:27 PM
The recent several pages of posts deal with the moon on the round earth.  This thread is about the moon on a flat earth.  Maybe those discussions could be more appropriately placed in the round earth full moon thread.

I would love to see a discussion about resolving the problems of the full moon on the flat earth, it's an interesting conundrum.

From the Wiki:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
"The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."

To have a full moon for everyone on earth on the same day, the moon needs to be directly above the sun, if it's to the side, eve slightly, different parts of the world would see a significantly different fullness of the moon.  I don't see how this works as the sun and moon aren't apparently near each other on days with a full moon, they are generally the farthest away from each other on full moon days.  Is there something I'm missing here?  Could a diagram be generated that makes sense?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on August 08, 2018, 08:45:24 PM
The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. Why aren't you listening? We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.

How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?
I see your straw man again Tom.

I have also said your "close-distance perspective" argument dose not always apply.  Why aren't you listening?

Don't ask me to tell you how this qualifies as a round earth argument, because  it doen't have to , but it does debunk your (original) argument.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2018, 09:45:55 PM
On the topic of the "ball experiment":

Look at what Mick West is doing at MetaBunk (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/page-2) (click to enlarge):

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100811-h4i9p-jpg.22884/)

He angles the camera close and right up to the ball to get it to point away from the sun:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100429-cw1d0-jpg.22882/)

These are clearly close-range perspective effects.

The sunlight area on the ball is pointing at the sun. No one can doubt this. The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.

Perspective matters less and less at further distances, and in RET the sun and moon does not change distance radically from the observer over the day. It is at the same distance from the observer at all times. Show a to-scale model of the earth-moon-sun that shows this perspective effect, and that it is possible for the perspective to change (https://i.imgur.com/dBeuy9C.png).
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2018, 10:06:21 PM
From the VSauce video that "explains" the moon tilt illusion:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/cd5bmYAK0DrrO0BP3i/giphy.gif)

This is a close range perspective effect. The same effect is not going to occur with the same motions if the screen is far from the camera. The camera would need to move of equal proportions if the laptop screen is far away.

Under the Sun-Earth-Moon system the bodies don't move closer or further from the observer enough, as compared to their distances, as to cause a large perspective effect changes.

This is no real explanation under the Round Earth Theory for this phenomenon. The explanations given are fudged explanations using close-range perspective, and the math given is fudged math where the distances of the Round Earth system do not matter at all for the result.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 08, 2018, 10:40:51 PM
How do you explain the phenomenon on a flat earth?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 09, 2018, 02:33:24 AM
These are clearly close-range perspective effects.
No, they're just perspective effects.

Quote
The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.
No, you just need to be viewing from the right angle.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2018, 03:29:08 AM
These are clearly close-range perspective effects.
No, they're just perspective effects.

Quote
The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.
No, you just need to be viewing from the right angle.

What angle? The perspective of the moon changes:

(https://i.imgur.com/dBeuy9C.png)

How does this make sense if the moon and the sun are far away and don't change distance to the observer?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Lauren_isnt_crazy on August 09, 2018, 04:25:33 AM
A full perspective theory is still in its infancy, but right now I will point you to the "Why do we se the same face of the moon" thread we had recently (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10013.0).

In the Flat Earth model, if the moon is above the altitude of the sun, the sun will see its underside. If the moon is below the altitude of the sun, the sun will see the top of the moon. Your idea of how the relation works in Ancient Greek Perspective Theory would need to be first demonstrated true, before we can say that perspective operates or scales in that manner.
Again with the Ancient Greek stuff. I'm trying to be zetetic here. I'm not assuming any Greek theory. Have you tried to model your Rubik's cube illustration. I have. It doesn't work. You're the self-claimed empiricist. Don't just say it works. Show it.

For the moon to be full, it can't be out of alignment from the sun. Just like you argued for RE. The geometry based on the claimed form and magnitude "assumptions" of FE wiki make it impossible. If that's not true -- if it's possible -- show how. That's the point of this topic.
wait can you explain the tides to me? help
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 09, 2018, 05:04:18 AM
What angle?
The same angle (roughly) as in the hallway, just on a bigger scale.  You do understand how 'scale' works correct?


Quote
How does this make sense if the moon and the sun are far away and don't change distance to the observer?
See above remark.  Here's another factor you apparently don't understand-  239k miles is "close range" compared to 93 million miles, and on a 'universe' scale, it is very "close range" perspective.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2018, 05:30:40 AM
What angle?
The same angle (roughly) as in the hallway, just on a bigger scale.  You do understand how 'scale' works correct?

The sun and moon aren't going down a hallway, changing distance radically in relation to the observer -- That's the Flat Earth model.

Give us a Round Earth model that explains this.

Quote
See above remark.  Here's another factor you apparently don't understand-  239k miles is "close range" compared to 93 million miles, and on a 'universe' scale, it is very "close range" perspective.

The sun and moon in RET do not change distance in relation to the observer, as to cause perspective effects. The sun and moon are the same distance from the observer at all times.

It appears that all you can give us are Flat Earth models.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 09, 2018, 05:44:14 AM
Tom, Can you show us why a "significant" (as it compares to the aforementioned distances involved) change in distance while in motion is necessary in order to have a perspective effect?

Had you actually performed any experiments related to this, you would have noticed that you can see this effect whilst remaining still.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2018, 05:47:27 AM
On the topic of the "ball experiment":

Look at what Mick West is doing at MetaBunk (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/page-2) (click to enlarge):

img

He angles the camera close and right up to the ball to get it to point away from the sun:

img

These are clearly close-range perspective effects.

What is? Please explain what 'effect' you think we're looking at

The sunlight area on the ball is pointing at the sun. No one can doubt this. The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.

Why are you still banging on this, when everyone tells you that the purpose of the experiment is NOT to get the ball to point "away from the sun".

If you do this, you should align the two bodies thus;

(https://i.imgur.com/MZh0UoS.jpg)

Aligned vertically. Doesn't matter if the ball is above or below the Moon, but the Moon should just be visible, so that you're as close as possible to the sight line between the two.

Not off to the side. Not significantly above or below, with dead space between.

There cannot be any 'perpsective effect' if you do this.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2018, 06:35:40 AM
What angle? The perspective of the moon changes:

img

How does this make sense if the moon and the sun are far away and don't change distance to the observer?

The graph shows how aspects of the Moon change depending on location of observer and its position in the sky. It's not a graph of how the Moon changes over the period of (say) one night. 

They do change distance, but only slightly in galactic terms. The observer on Earth could, if at the equator, move to and from the Moon and/or the Sun by up to half the diameter of the Earth.

However, this makes sense because, for the umpteenth time, you, the observer, are at one point of a triangle. The triangle is formed by you, the observer, the Moon and the Sun at the three points.

One face of the Moon is always illuminated along the imaginary triangle side connecting Moon and Sun. As the Moon moves around the Earth, this illuminated portion changes, as the same side of the Moon faces the Earth at all times. This gives us the phases of the Moon.

One side of the triangle is your observation line between you and the Moon.

The last side is the imaginary line between you and the Sun, but this is where it gets interesting, because after sunset, and before sunrise, you cannot take a bearing on this line, because you cannot see the Sun. It's below your local horizon.

However, because the Moon is 240k miles away from the Earth, the Moon is still in sunlight, even though you are not. Your local horizon is irrelevant to the illumination of the Moon.

The crucial thing to take in is that you, the observer, are most likely not aligned with this imaginary triangle. You're at one point of it, but you will most likely not be either horizontally or vertically aligned with the plane of it. This will affect what you see and how you perceive it. If you don't realise this fact, you will be confused by what you see.

This is why the image has the 'altitude' as one axis of the chart - that's actually the observer's LATITUDE on the Earth, isn't it?




I have a desktop globe, I have a little model Moon to go with it, I could make a 3D model to show you, but .... why should I, when folks here ask you to do the most simple of experiments (hold a small sports ball up to the Moon), but you apparently don't make the effort?       
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2018, 10:31:00 AM
Tom, Can you show us why a "significant" (as it compares to the aforementioned distances involved) change in distance while in motion is necessary in order to have a perspective effect?

Geometry works in ratios. Look at the animation I posted in my previous post. (https://media.giphy.com/media/cd5bmYAK0DrrO0BP3i/giphy.gif) If the laptop screen is far from the observer those same motions are not going to cause the same effect. The screen would not change at all.

Look at the animation I posted on the last page (https://media.giphy.com/media/QLNnW3c2d2iGEPIICh/giphy.gif). If the white surface were much further from the observer, those slight motions would not cause the same effect. The surface would hardly change in perspective at all.

In an example of a pencil pointed horizontally; in order to get a pencil to change perspective and point in a different direction you will need to move around it radically in comparison to your distance to that pencil.

If that pencil is 10,000 feet away from the observer, your movements would have to be of a much larger magnitude. Your same movements will not change the pencil to perspective. Bill agreed with that. Do you disagree?

The moon is only going to shift over you about 2 degrees due to the rotation of the earth/moon in the Round Earth system, and the sun much less than that.

Top-Down View:
(https://i.imgur.com/mg627sK.png)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2018, 10:53:16 AM
What angle? The perspective of the moon changes:

img

How does this make sense if the moon and the sun are far away and don't change distance to the observer?

The graph shows how aspects of the Moon change depending on location of observer and its position in the sky. It's not a graph of how the Moon changes over the period of (say) one night.
 

The graph is not of a single night, no. The graph shows what happens on multiple nights from a single location, as the moon goes from Full Moon to New Moon It is not from different locations. The bottom range is the number of degrees from North.

Over multiple nights the angle of the phase changes in odd ways. If you are going to account that to perspective, you should explain how this could happen in the Round Earth system where the distances to the objects don't really change.

Quote
However, this makes sense because, for the umpteenth time, you, the observer, are at one point of a triangle. The triangle is formed by you, the observer, the Moon and the Sun at the three points.

One face of the Moon is always illuminated along the imaginary triangle side connecting Moon and Sun. As the Moon moves around the Earth, this illuminated portion changes, as the same side of the Moon faces the Earth at all times. This gives us the phases of the Moon.

How does the phase of the moon point away from the sun?

How does perspective affect the Round Earth system if the distances aren't changing much in relation to the distance between the objects?

Quote
This is why the image has the 'altitude' as one axis of the chart - that's actually the observer's LATITUDE on the Earth, isn't it?

The Altitude on the left hand side is the elevation of the moon above the horizon in degrees. The Azimuth is the number of degrees counter-clockwise from North. The objects on the left and right far ends are 180 degrees from each other.

It is showing what the moon does from a single location, not multiple location.

It is not over one night, but over multiple nights as the moon transitions from Full to New.

Quote
I have a desktop globe, I have a little model Moon to go with it, I could make a 3D model to show you, but .... why should I, when folks here ask you to do the most simple of experiments (hold a small sports ball up to the Moon), but you apparently don't make the effort?     

The sun points at the ball:

SUN --------> O

Correct?

The only way to make the phase point upwards away from the sun like the moon  in the moon tilt illusion is by a close range perspective effect.

Right?

If you are maintaining that this perspective effect is affecting the Earth-Moon system, you will need to explain how this can be when it is only the Flat Earth model where the celestial bodies change their distances to you radically in comparison to their distances above the earth. In the Round Earth system distances hardly change at all.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2018, 02:05:18 PM
The moon is only going to shift over you about 2 degrees due to the rotation of the earth/moon in the Round Earth system, and the sun much less than that.

Top-Down View:
img

So you agree that this angle of 1.898 is the angle formed AT the Moon between the imaginary lines drawn from two observers, each on opposite sides of the Earth? i.e. it's the same as my previous diagram;

--------
(https://i.imgur.com/hlO1wZ0.jpg)
-----------

but in reverse (you have Moon on the right, I had it on the left)

-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/SJUB2vM.jpg)
-------------

The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N

And this angle will be smaller for observers separated by less latitude? Y/N

So the observers at 45N and 45S will be looking along sightlines with a difference of around one degree? They're essentially looking along the same sightline to the Moon?  Y/N

------------
(https://i.imgur.com/5o3MwJD.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on August 09, 2018, 04:57:09 PM
To have a full moon for everyone on earth on the same day, the moon needs to be directly above the sun, if it's to the side, eve slightly, different parts of the world would see a significantly different fullness of the moon.  I don't see how this works as the sun and moon aren't apparently near each other on days with a full moon, they are generally the farthest away from each other on full moon days.  Is there something I'm missing here?  Could a diagram be generated that makes sense?

This is not correct. In the round earth model there is a degree of difference in which we can have a full moon without it being in the shadow of the earth.

This same degree of difference could exist in a flat earth model too but the altitude of the moon would have to be hundreds of thousands of miles above the sun which contradicts the wiki and what we observe in the real world.

The alternate theory for the flat earth was that the moon is generating its own light.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BillO on August 09, 2018, 09:53:19 PM
On the topic of the "ball experiment":

Look at what Mick West is doing at MetaBunk (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/page-2) (click to enlarge):

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100811-h4i9p-jpg.22884/)

He angles the camera close and right up to the ball to get it to point away from the sun:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100429-cw1d0-jpg.22882/)

These are clearly close-range perspective effects.

The sunlight area on the ball is pointing at the sun. No one can doubt this. The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.

Perspective matters less and less at further distances, and in RET the sun and moon does not change distance radically from the observer over the day. It is at the same distance from the observer at all times. Show a to-scale model of the earth-moon-sun that shows this perspective effect, and that it is possible for the perspective to change (https://i.imgur.com/dBeuy9C.png).


Tom, you need to STFU about the close perspective thing.  You said your self the that paper we were discussing, the instances are irrelevant.  It is the direction.  This thing you just posted proves that the Moon's terminator is at the same angel as the ball's, which is what we were saying in the first place.  The ball, at eye level will point at the sun, away from eye level (like the moon) will not, but they will have the very exact same terminator angle.  How in the name of sanity can't you see this?  This is merely and illusion caused by displacing the ball, (or the moon) from the line of sight.

It is interesting to note you hero has not shown the sun in the 2nd picture where, if it really were 8' away from the camera, would clearly see the terminator on the ball would not point at sun.  Again, the further away the ball is, the more pronounced the effect will, and the closer it is the less pronounced it will be.  Regardless, the terminator on the ball WILL be parallel to that of the moon, even when at eye level, it points at the sun, but the moon terminator 'appears' not to. 

And again, you march your straw man out.  What the heck does what you did with the the phone have to do with the 'ball experiment'?  It's no more relevant than was the card you tried to hit the camera with.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2018, 10:25:00 PM
The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N

Yes

Quote
And this angle will be smaller for observers separated by less latitude? Y/N

The oberver is in the same poisition and the earth is rotating between positions.

Quote
So the observers at 45N and 45S will be looking along sightlines with a difference of around one degree? They're essentially looking along the same sightline to the Moon?  Y/N

The image, as I am using it here, is assuming two observers on the equator. At 45 N and 45 S, the circle that the earth turns on is smaller than the equator, and it will be less... about ~1 degree instead of ~2 degrees.

Updated Image, Top-Down View:
(https://i.imgur.com/XCcKkyp.png)

Using the above method on the Diameter of the Moon's Orbit and the Diameter of the Earth, to compute the difference in viewing angle for the Sun is even worse:

Earth Diameter: 7917.5 mi

Diameter of Moon Orbit: 238,900 x 2 = 477,800 mi

Distance from Earth to Sun: 92,900,000 mi

Circumference of Earth to Sun Radius: 2 * pi * 92,900,000 = 583,707,915.037

583,707,915.037 / 360 = 1621410.8751 mi per degree

(Moon Orbit Diameter) 477,800 mi / 1621410.8751 = 0.29468 Degrees Max

(Earth Diameter) 7917.5 / 1621410.8751 = 0.00488 Degrees Max


Where are all of the perspective change for the Moon Tilt Illusion coming from?

It is certainly not from the geometry of the Earth-Moon-Sun system.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2018, 10:25:17 PM
The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N

Yes

Quote
And this angle will be smaller for observers separated by less latitude? Y/N

The observer is in the same poisition and the earth is rotating between positions.

No, we started out talking about three simultaneous observers, all looking at the Moon at the same instant. One on the equator, one at 45N and one at 45S. There can be no rotation of either Earth or Moon, since no time has elapsed. Your measurement assumes the difference between observer positions to be the full Earth diameter. It will be less than this for the two observers at 45N and 45S.      Y/N

Quote
So the observers at 45N and 45S will be looking along sightlines with a difference of around one degree? They're essentially looking along the same sightline to the Moon?  Y/N

At 45 N and 45 S, the circle that the earth turns on is smaller than the equator I am using, and it will be less... about ~1 degree instead of ~2 degrees

So you agree, that if the two observers sightlines differ in only one degree, that they are essentially looking along the same sightline to the Moon? Could you really tell if you were looking along a line at 50 degrees, say, as opposed to 49 or 51 degrees?

(Tom's calculation method follows)

Where is all of this perspective coming from?

All WHAT 'perspective'? What ARE you talking about?

Why can't you use a simpler, more straightforward method to calculate this, such as I indicated a few pages ago (EDIT Reply #53 in the Crescent Moon thread, not this one)? It's just triangles and solving for angles, with a little spherical geometry to calculate chords, etc.

1.336 degrees which should be split between the two - each is looking some 0.668 degrees away from a notional datum line between Earth and Moon centres. Essentially the same sight line, yes?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2018, 10:51:19 PM
OK, we've established what the system looks like from a plan view. I showed you plan and side views earlier on, or in the Crescent Moon thread.

What does this observation look like from a position BEHIND the observers?

Remember, they are looking from Earth to Moon. If you were behind their heads, looking past them to the Moon, and you could see both the globe and them in one frame, or field of view, what do you think they (and the Moon) would look like?

I suggest it would look something like this;

(https://i.imgur.com/eBt2BUa.jpg)

The sightlines of the outer observers aren't converging by any more than half a degree or so. We've just established that, haven't we? They only look like they are, the same way as parallel railway lines look like they're converging.

However, the ORIENTATION of the observers is clearly different, isn't it?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: BigGuyWhoKills on August 09, 2018, 11:02:36 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/eBt2BUa.jpg)

This makes sense to me.  The guy on the left side of the picture would see the moon's terminator as nearly horizontal.  The guy on the right side of the picture would see the moon's terminator as nearly vertical.  That would not happen on a flat Earth.

I am now expecting EA to rear it's ugly head.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2018, 11:13:19 PM
OK, we've established what the system looks like from a plan view. I showed you plan and side views earlier on, or in the Crescent Moon thread.

What does this observation look like from a position BEHIND the observers?

Remember, they are looking from Earth to Moon. If you were behind their heads, looking past them to the Moon, and you could see both the globe and them in one frame, or field of view, what do you think they (and the Moon) would look like?

I suggest it would look something like this;

https://i.imgur.com/eBt2BUa.jpg

The sightlines of the outer observers aren't converging by any more than half a degree or so. We've just established that, haven't we? They only look like they are, the same way as parallel railway lines look like they're converging.

However, the ORIENTATION of the observers is clearly different, isn't it?

What are you talking about?

There is only one observer.

The one observer sees phases that look like this in the sky, many which do not point at the sun:

(https://i.imgur.com/dBeuy9C.png)

Altitude is the elevation of the moon in the sky. Azimuth is the degrees clockwise from North. The diagram shows phases from full to new.

This one observer will see this apparent shift in perspective. The observer doesn't move from his position. The only thing moving are earth's rotation/celestial bodies, which do not get closer to the observer or change angle by any large amount. The change is very minimal.

We can simulate this with a small ball that is half-colored and pass it over our head to create all of these phases and angles.

But how does the Round Earth system explain this? The Round Earth System can't change as drastically in relation to the observer as the half-colored ball example.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2018, 11:23:40 PM
There is only one observer.

But you just agreed, a couple of posts ago, right above this, that there were two - when you worked out the angular difference between them, with one on one side of the Earth, and one on the other.  Or are you saying that only one person can look at the Moon at any one time, and nobody else can at the same time?


Quote
The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N

Yes
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2018, 11:29:04 PM
There is only one observer.

But you just agreed, a couple of posts ago, right above this, that there were two - when you worked out the angular difference between them, with one on one side of the Earth, and one on the other.  Or are you saying that only one person can look at the Moon at any one time, and nobody else can at the same time?


Quote
The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N

Yes

There is one observer. There are 2 positions because the earth allegedly rotates. Those are the maximum angles the observer can view the moon from due to the rotation of the earth.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2018, 11:45:08 PM
There is one observer. There are 2 positions because the earth allegedly rotates. Those are the maximum angles the observer can view the moon from due to the rotation of the earth.

... but surely you agree that if the Earth does rotate, and you can have one observer who observes from position 1, then moves to position 2, that you could also have observer 1 and observer 2 observing at the same time from those respective positions?

Or do you really think that only one person in the world can view the Moon at any one time?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2018, 12:04:19 AM
Recall our conversation in the other thread about what happens to celestial bodies when viewed from different parts of the earth. We can't just rotate the scene.

Quote
You are at the equator looking at the Western Horizon and the moon is passing by from behind overhead, setting vertically into the Western horizon.

Code: [Select]
    |
    |
    V
---------
  west

Now you rotate the image by 90 degrees to simulate what would happen at the North Pole.

Code: [Select]
       |
west   | <---------
       |

Now the moon seems to be passing over the North Pole...

At 45 degrees N or S the moon is also passing overhead too far North or South, if one were to rotate the image 45 degrees left or right. Rotating the image is not enough to simulate the curvature of the earth.


Here is an illustration of the moon with a green arrow to mark orientation at 45 degrees N, 0 N, and 45 Degrees South:

(https://i.imgur.com/AMfe9ak.png)

The problem is that you need to get the moon to point away from the sun, regardless of that tilt of the horizon. The moon can be pointed away from the sun with the sun in the sky at the same time.

Regardless of the tilt of the horizon, the moon is pointing away from the sun in the Moon Tilt Illusion.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: model 29 on August 10, 2018, 02:18:34 AM
Tom, Can you show us why a "significant" (as it compares to the aforementioned distances involved) change in distance while in motion is necessary in order to have a perspective effect?
Geometry works in ratios. Look at the animation I posted in my previous post. (https://media.giphy.com/media/cd5bmYAK0DrrO0BP3i/giphy.gif) If the laptop screen is far from the observer those same motions are not going to cause the same effect. The screen would not change at all.
Really?  Ok show us.

Quote
Look at the animation I posted on the last page (https://media.giphy.com/media/QLNnW3c2d2iGEPIICh/giphy.gif). If the white surface were much further from the observer, those slight motions would not cause the same effect. The surface would hardly change in perspective at all.
Can you show us that one too?  Hold the camera the same distance away as when it starts, and only move down, remaining level left-right, and looking up and to the left.

Quote
In an example of a pencil pointed horizontally; in order to get a pencil to change perspective and point in a different direction you will need to move around it radically in comparison to your distance to that pencil.
You've taken the globe distances and scaled them down.  And?

Quote
If that pencil is 10,000 feet away from the observer, your movements would have to be of a much larger magnitude. Your same movements will not change the pencil to perspective. Bill agreed with that. Do you disagree?
I guess if you believe the (globe) distance from the sun to the moon is 239,000 miles, and Earth is roughly 7billion miles away from the two.  Is that what you believe the distances are in the globe model?  Do you have a source stating those distances?

Quote
The moon is only going to shift over you about 2 degrees due to the rotation of the earth/moon in the Round Earth system, and the sun much less than that.
And?  We're talking about perspective involving the angles the moon is view at during certain periods of its orbit.  Why are you attempting to derail and/or confuse yourself further?

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 10, 2018, 06:53:02 AM
We can't just rotate the scene.

Why not? I've shown a real photograph of the Moon, not a diagram, with my dummy Earth in front of it, with three stick men on the surface, at what would be approx 55N (middle), 10N (left) and 80N. This is roughly equivalent to 45S, 0, 45N. I can't travel to the equator to take photos for this thread.

If the Moon, at any one instant in time, is visible in this orientation for the observer at 55N, then the observers at the other points, at exactly the same time, MUST see it tilted 45 degrees left or right, because they are orientated that way, some 45 degrees off the orientation of the middle observer. The photo shows the Moon in the orientation appropriate for me, the actual photographer, standing upright. If I leaned the camera one side or the other, the Moon's orientation in the photo would change. Since the side observers already have this rotation, then if they photographed the Moon whilst upright, they would capture it in the same orientation as I did by rotating the camera. 

You've already agreed that they are all looking, broadly, along the same line of sight, with only a degree or so difference.

Quote
You are at the equator looking at the Western Horizon and the moon is passing by from behind overhead, setting vertically into the Western horizon.

But we're not looking at its passing, simply how it appears at one instant in time.

Now you rotate the image by 90 degrees to simulate what would happen at the North Pole.

Now the moon seems to be passing over the North Pole...

Again, only looking at one instant in time. Not considering its movement, or direction at present, simply how it appears in the sky at that one instant to the three observers. 


Rotating the image is not enough to simulate the curvature of the earth.

Why not?


Here is an illustration of the moon with a green arrow to mark orientation at 45 degrees N, 0 N, and 45 Degrees South:

IMG

Photo trumps diagram.

The problem is that you need to get the moon to point away from the sun, regardless of that tilt of the horizon.

Why? I'm showing no tilt in any horizon. The horizon for each stick man in my photo is a line perpendicular to the vertical of their bodies. Image to follow to illustrate this.


The moon can be pointed away from the sun with the sun in the sky at the same time.

Can it? Please show us with a photo. 

Regardless of the tilt of the horizon

What tilt?


, the moon is pointing away from the sun in the Moon Tilt Illusion.

It's an ILLUSION.

We can circle back to that, but let's deal with the actual photograph of the Moon, and what this tells us first. The photo above does not illustrate the illusion, and was never intended to illustrate the illusion. It's just a photo of the Moon, taken late morning, when the Sun and Moon were both in the sky.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 10, 2018, 07:34:45 AM
Has anyone tried the string experiment?

We're entering the new moon phase now so it'll be a week or so before the time will be ripe to try it. Maybe a picture is worth more than all these thousands of words to show that the line oriented normal to the moon's terminator is "pointing" to the sun and not off kilter as the illusion makes it appear to be.

I'll do it.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 10, 2018, 07:52:36 AM
Has anyone tried the string experiment?

We're entering the new moon phase now ...

I'll do it.

Excellent.

Meanwhile, continuing the theme above;

Here's me looking at the Moon

(https://i.imgur.com/HduxlEA.jpg)

Here's what the Moon would look like for someone 90 degrees of latitude away from me, to my right (the Moon was in the South)

(https://i.imgur.com/BHYxG3x.jpg)

I'm now the horizontal stick man on the left, and this new observer is at the top. Note how the Moon would look for him/her. Remember, we've agreed both are broadly looking along the same sightline.

(To borrow your pencil analogy, they're both in line with a pencil held along the line connecting Earth and Moon centres. No more than one degree off, if this angle is measured at the Moon)

Tom - Yes? No?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: MCToon on August 10, 2018, 09:09:44 AM
To have a full moon for everyone on earth on the same day, the moon needs to be directly above the sun, if it's to the side, eve slightly, different parts of the world would see a significantly different fullness of the moon.  I don't see how this works as the sun and moon aren't apparently near each other on days with a full moon, they are generally the farthest away from each other on full moon days.  Is there something I'm missing here?  Could a diagram be generated that makes sense?

This is not correct. In the round earth model there is a degree of difference in which we can have a full moon without it being in the shadow of the earth.

This same degree of difference could exist in a flat earth model too but the altitude of the moon would have to be hundreds of thousands of miles above the sun which contradicts the wiki and what we observe in the real world.

The alternate theory for the flat earth was that the moon is generating its own light.

You are correct, I cannot see how the moon above the sun to produce a full moon works on FE.  I'm looking for someone to support and explain how it works.  The wiki on this very site claims the full moon is because the moon is above the sun, I cannot fathom how this claim can be supported.

The moon generating it's own light is only for people that desire to make flat earthers look stupid.  Before telescopes, this was worth contemplating.  With our easy to obtain resolution through basic telescopes or good cameras, it's so completely incorrect that it's not worth discussing.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: garygreen on August 10, 2018, 06:53:13 PM
Has anyone tried the string experiment?

We're entering the new moon phase now so it'll be a week or so before the time will be ripe to try it. Maybe a picture is worth more than all these thousands of words to show that the line oriented normal to the moon's terminator is "pointing" to the sun and not off kilter as the illusion makes it appear to be.

I'll do it.

i've tried it on both crescent and gibbous phases, but i couldn't figure out a easy way to take an image of the results.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 10, 2018, 10:30:25 PM
Has anyone tried the string experiment?

We're entering the new moon phase now so it'll be a week or so before the time will be ripe to try it. Maybe a picture is worth more than all these thousands of words to show that the line oriented normal to the moon's terminator is "pointing" to the sun and not off kilter as the illusion makes it appear to be.

I'll do it.

i've tried it on both crescent and gibbous phases, but i couldn't figure out a easy way to take an image of the results.

I figured on taking a panorama. You just need to make sure the pan is at the angle of the string rather than the horizon. If you pan level with the horizon, the string will appear to bow (which, actually, would illustrate why the apparent trace from moon to sun bows).

Now that I think about it, I don't even have to wait for the moon. I can stretch taught a string between two locations that would line up with a predicted moon/sun orientation, show that's it's straight from one perspective, but then take a pano aligned with the horizon and, voila', my straight string will come out looking curved.

I'm going to look at Stellarium to find a time/date when I should be able to see this illusion, take note of the moon and sun elevations and azimuths and then set up poles aligned with where the sun and moon will be. Stretch the string taught across the top of the poles and then take a couple of panoramics: 1 aligned with the horizon and 1 panning at the angle of the string.

That'll be the predictive model. Then to wait for the actual date and see if the results are the same.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 11, 2018, 01:55:32 PM
The 1.898 degrees is the angle at the Moon between the POSITIONS of the observers separated by the full diameter of the Earth? Y/N

Yes.  The image, as I am using it here, is assuming two observers on the equator. At 45 N and 45 S, the circle that the earth turns on is smaller than the equator, and it will be less... about ~1 degree instead of ~2 degrees.

Updated Image, Top-Down View:
IMG

So ... Tom has taken two observer points on opposite sides of the globe, and formed a triangle to a point representing the Moon, some 240k miles away, and calculated the angle formed by the two sightlines at the Moon.

If we really want to establish the angle between each observer's sightlines at 45N and 45S, we need to do better than calculating a single angle at the Moon from a single triangle drawn to their locations.

1. From this source, the angular size of the Moon is 31 arc mins, or approx 0.5 degrees.

https://lco.global/spacebook/using-angles-describe-positions-and-apparent-sizes-objects/

(https://lco.global/files/spacebook/31%20arcminutes%20trans%20background.png)

2. From the single points on Earth of these two observers, at 45N and 45S, mirroring this picture, we can draw in these angles (the Orange circular dots). These are 0.5 degrees. I've marked in the upper and lower limits of this 0.5 degrees with the orange lines.

(https://i.imgur.com/tMafPGW.jpg)

3. A straight line connecting the two observers through the Earth is the length of a Chord, where the angle of Arc covered is 90 degrees (one observer at 45N, one at 45S, 45+45 = 90)

We have already established that for an Earth radius of 3959 miles, this chord has length 5,598 miles (Green line in above)

4. If the two observers were truly looking along sightlines parallel to each other, they would be looking along the blue lines. They are separated by 5,598 miles at Earth, and true parallel sightlines would arrive at the Moon's distance still separated by 5,598 miles. The Moon has a diameter of 2,159 miles (Purple square), so the 'space' left each side of the Moon where these imaginary sightlines pass it by is (Blue square) 1,720 miles on each side (5,598 - 2,159 = 3,439, div by 2 = 1,720)

5. This gives us a right-angle triangle, where we need to solve for the small angle indicated by the blue circle. The intermediate side is equal to 240k miles (distance to Moon, rounded, and taken as the distance from observer's eyeball to a vertical drawn through the geometric centre of the Moon), and the small side (Blue square) we have just derived as 1,720. Put this into a right triangle calculator (http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm), and this gives us a blue circle angle of 0.411 degrees.

This is entirely  consistent with the angular size of the Moon being 0.5 degrees. (Angular size of 1720 miles = 0.411, angular size of 2159 miles = 0.5)

6. Adding this to the 0.5 degrees of the Orange circle, this gives an absolute MAXIMUM deviation from a true parallel sightline of 0.9 degrees approx.

Therefore, to all intents and purposes, the two observers, if looking at the Moon at the same instant, are looking at it along the
same sightline. Neither observer would be able to tell, with the naked eye, if they were looking at any different angle from the other.

The above shows a side-on view. From a position behind Earth and the observers, looking toward the Moon, it would look something like this;

(https://i.imgur.com/H7IDxj5.jpg)

Agreed? Tom?   

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 12, 2018, 12:43:59 AM

I'm going to look at Stellarium to find a time/date when I should be able to see this illusion, take note of the moon and sun elevations and azimuths and then set up poles aligned with where the sun and moon will be. Stretch the string taught across the top of the poles and then take a couple of panoramics: 1 aligned with the horizon and 1 panning at the angle of the string.

That'll be the predictive model. Then to wait for the actual date and see if the results are the same.

I think the pre-sunset evening of Friday, August 17th will be my target:

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/23uzspu.jpg)

Greater than 90° field of view between sun (when it's close to the horizon to the west) and moon (at peak elevation to the south) means that'll make it a half moon and, clear skies willing, it'll present me with a moon that won't appear to be "pointing" its illuminated half toward the sun. Will the string trick break the illusion?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 15, 2018, 04:37:03 PM
Plan is to perform this observation (or, in local lingo, experiment) at a nearby park with open 360° views on Friday about a half hour before sunset:

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/fdyr1i.jpg)

Camera on tripod at 2.5' height as center point.
2 styrofoam balls set on garden stakes:
  1) 6' stake on 189° bearing, 3'9" away to create a 43° elevation angle from camera level for the moon.
  2) 3' stake on a 281° bearing, 4'9" away to create a 6° elevation angle from camera level for the sun.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/NTDhnC7h5aEtVG54Xw/giphy.gif)

Hoping the sky will be clear, especially the western horizon, so that the sun will still be able to cast light on the "moon" ball and replicate the actual moon's terminator. 

The sun and moon (and their model ball counterparts) won't be in the same field of view, but I'll try to capture the illusion in a panoramic shot.

Then, I'll stretch a length of colored twine between the "moon" and "sun" balls and we'll see what that does for the perception of misalignment of terminator with the sun.

Any comments, suggestions or critiques?
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 15, 2018, 04:45:51 PM
Any comments, suggestions or critiques?

Can you specify the town, village or city in which this park is located?

I'd like to look at mooncalc, suncalc, and in-the-sky so that I can see what they predict.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 15, 2018, 04:50:52 PM
That info is in the post just prior.

San Diego, CA
August 17th
6:55

(More realistically, around 6:30.  I need to be packed up and done by 7.)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 18, 2018, 02:02:17 AM
Not going to get home in time for this. In LA tomorrow so that's out. Push to Sunday.

18:45 local on Sunday. Sun and Moon will be 110° apart in bearing and moon will be 58% illuminated in what should be an even more pronounced terminator apparently misaligned from the low angle, pre-sunset sun.

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/t8s2rs.jpg)

I understand the principle, but I still can't help but wonder if this string thing is going to really work to dispel the illusion.

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 19, 2018, 10:37:11 PM
Still planning to perform this experiment today, but yesterday I was at the Griffith Observatory in the afternoon. And it was a little before sunset when we were leaving when I decided to just take out my shoelace and give the string test a preliminary try. The sun was getting low to the Hollywood Hills, but it was still high enough and bright enough to cause sighting problems.

So I used a sign to block the sun, had my son hold one end taut at where the sun was occluded behind the sign, and I stretched it straight to line up with the moon (now in its 1st quarter).

This wasn't ideal since I found it very hard to capture the scene. Even in the fullest view, the sun and moon are at too wide an angle to get in a single shot without a distorting wide angle lens. Also, when zoomed out to show the length of string, it makes the moon too small to see its terminator.  Zooming in, and you lose simultaneous focus on the string and moon. I tried different aperture settings and focal lengths, but I was limited in time so this is the best I could do. Hoping for better performance this evening under a more controlled setting, but this might serve as a precursor as to what to expect.

Here's a crude "panorama" of the moon-to-sun, which formed an angle greater than 90°

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/vhdzd1.jpg)

I added a little inset zoom of the moon to help make the terminator line more visible. But lacking index/reference points between images, I can't be sure I've aligned the separate images correctly. In fact, I'm almost sure I haven't since the moon should be higher relative to the flat lateral span traced from the sun. Still, even when skewed lower I think the illusion is still there since the shadow line on the moon still looks like it is perpendicular to a line that points higher than the sun. Right? Looks like it's pointing toward the upper right hand corner of the "panoramic" composite. And that's how it looked in real life too. I needed to explain to several curious people who asked what I was doing and all agreed that it did look like the moon's terminator wasn't aligned with the sun. So the illusion is real.

But looking across the stretched string, which I avow was straight and taut:

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/e0sv4g.jpg)

That's my hand holding the string aligned with the moon straight out and up in front of me. My son's hand is holding the other end which was about level with my head and off my right shoulder.

It lines up:

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/9a0g7l.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 05:31:36 AM
Easier to see if you do it yourself than to try to photograph or record it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVPIcjv1H00

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/20ur891.jpg)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2018, 06:07:10 AM
Thanks for getting some video of this. Here is my opinion of this:

Isn't that just the close range ball-perspective example, just with a line that extends outwards? The ball on the stick that is at an unnatural perspective angle pointing away from the sun suggests pretty clearly that this is, in fact, the same experiment.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 06:35:57 AM
Thanks for getting some video of this. Here is my opinion of this:

Isn't that just the close range ball-perspective example, just with a line that extends outwards? The ball on the stick that is at an unnatural perspective angle pointing away from the sun suggests pretty clearly that this is, in fact, the same experiment.

Yes. If i understand you right, they are, but with the addition of the string to show that the terminator aligns with a straight line toward the sun, because it sure doesn't look like it'll work. It looks like the line will extend above to where the sun is. But it doesn't. It aligns.

I don't know what "unnatural perspective angle" means. In the 3rd axis (depth) of 3 dimensions, the line from surrogate moon to surrogate sun isn't the same as that of actual moon to actual sun because the balls on stakes are not nearly at distances to scale of the actual moon and sun. If that's what you mean, that doesn't matter, as long as the line between them falls on the same plane. We aren't perceiving the depth. That's part of the reason for the illusion. The other is the bearing line to the moon and the sun is a wide field of view (90° or greater), which requires panning. The lack of depth perception of the moon and sun away from us is exaggerated by that panning, which itself "curves" space when it gets collapsed into a 2D projection, either on a computer screen, photograph or just by our eyes looking up at the "celestial sphere".

You have some objection about "close perspective" being different from perspective at distances, I know. I don't get that, but I know you're committed to it so I'm not expecting this demo to convince you of anything. I just wanted to do this for myself mainly since even though I don't agree with you and do think I understand why the illusion happens, I needed to see it for myself. Even if you don't accept the why of it, it should demo that whatever the reason, the moon's terminator is not misaligned with the sun.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 06:40:11 AM
Post script: I don't think this is even a round earth vs. flat earth thing. I believe the explanation works whether talking about a spherical earth with a distant moon and much more distant sun or a flat earth with relatively nearby moon+sun. If the explanation didn't work for round earth, it wouldn't work for flat earth either and both models would struggle to explain it.

In other words, like the moon 'tilt' phenomenon, I don't think this is a distinguishing feature between round and flat earths. All I think it does is dispel the "need" for a self-illumination moon. It's clear (to me anyway) that this proves the sun illuminates the moon.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 20, 2018, 11:05:50 AM
This is great work, Bobby.
I don’t know what close range perspective effect means. The original question was how come the terminator of the moon doesn’t line up with where the sun is. If the moon is being lit by the sun then it should. Your experiment proves that even though it may look like there is no alignment, a straight line between the moon and the sun does line up and the apparent lack of alignment is in fact an optical illusion. This is another good example why the FE premise of trusting one’s senses is flawed. Our senses our limited and they can be tricked.

Also, if this WAS a problem then it would be a problem for the FE moon too which is also lit by the sun in most FE models.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 20, 2018, 11:27:22 AM
Isn't that just the close range ball-perspective example, just with a line that extends outwards?

So what if it is a "close range ball-perspective example"? What does that tell us?

The ball on the stick that is at an unnatural perspective angle pointing away from the sun suggests pretty clearly that this is, in fact, the same experiment.

Did anyone claim it to be a different experiment?

Besides which, what "unnatural perspective angle" are you talking about?

It's a sphere. How can you hold it at any specific "angle"?  It's the same, whichever way you hold it.

Now, about that Venus thread...
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: edby on August 20, 2018, 01:52:16 PM
This is great work Bobby. Still puzzling about why it occurs, or in what sense it really is an illusion. I am thinking of two huge hoops, one of which is congruent with the horizon line, the other of which is congruent with your string. The hoops will intersect at the far east, and the far west (assuming the sun setting directly west).

Now imagine the whole earth is removed, and we just have the two hoops. Does the second still appear curved, but the first not? But the principle of sufficient reason suggests there is no difference between the two.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 20, 2018, 02:26:36 PM
This is great work Bobby. Still puzzling about why it occurs, or in what sense it really is an illusion.

Think of the three bodies, Earth, Moon and Sun, as three points of a triangle.

One side connects the Moon and Sun, and the illuminated portion of the Moon is always aligned with that line. The central point of the illuminated surface is always the closest point of the Moon toward the Sun.

You, the observer, or the Earth itself, are at the point of the triangle opposite this side, but you're most likely not aligned with either the plane of the triangle, nor a perpendicular drawn to that plane. You're most likely looking at the opposite side of the triangle from an angle, to start with, and you're most likely either above or below the plane of the triangle to a certain extent.

Your viewpoint of the Moon will vary according to the Moon's position with respect to Earth's orbit (whereabouts in its phase it is, and its attitude with respect to the ecliptic), your observational latitude above or below the equator, the time of day or night.

So the Moon sometimes looks skew-whiff. But it's just down to how you're looking at it. If you could drift out in space, in perfect alignment with it, or it and the Sun, there would be no illusion.   
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on August 20, 2018, 02:41:02 PM
I made a crude 3D model of my set up, and added a second set of balls on stakes at random distances away. As long as you get the elevation angles right, the distance doesn't matter. You just need the straight line to be coincident with the same inclined plane formed by the moon, sun and your eye (camera).
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/35n55qw.jpg)
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2d8q26d.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBj124hrXdE

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2018, 11:27:09 AM
Tumeni posted this in another thread; related to the moon terminator illusion:

I made up an artificial Moon which will better illustrate shadows than the baseball previously used;

(https://i.imgur.com/f7SoysR.jpg)

Different day, different month, same result. Artificial Moon held up in sunlight on Earth matches the Moon in the sky. No "perspective effects" involved

You are likely creating a perspective effect that points upwards when you hold it at that location.

Consider the following image. It shows that holding it at position close to the camera and above the center would cause the ball or object to point upwards. It also shows that a greater displacement is required to create perspective effects when bodies are further from the observer, which we were talking about earlier in this thread.

(https://i.imgur.com/zOcq8jV.png)

To the response of "just extend those pencils out to the moon," we saw in another thread that the perspective of the moon in the moon terminator illusion changes, and is not in one single perspective position at all times.
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 31, 2018, 11:52:35 AM
You are likely creating a perspective effect that points upwards when you hold it at that location.

So are you suggesting I hold it at a different location? If so, where?

Do you assert that this "perspective effect" will make the shadow on the artificial moon look any different from the one on the real moon?

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 31, 2018, 12:07:21 PM
The pencil diagram and explanation of what happens when you move the pencil off-axis is irrelevant, because I'm not concerned with what happens if I move the baseball off line.

The idea, as I've said to you more than once already, is to place it in alignment with the eye-moon sightline. Obviously this is impossible, as the baseball would cover the Moon if I truly held it on the line. So the principle is to get it as close to the line as possible.

I chose to place it under the real Moon, as my arm would be in the way if I held it above. Likewise, if I held it to the right of the Moon, my hand would be in the way. So the only option left is to hold the baseball to the left of the Moon. Should I do this next time, and we'll see if there's any noticeable difference in the shadow on the baseball, and whether it's any different from a baseball held below the Moon?

This is what the scenario should be; what happens if I elevate the baseball up by 5 to 20 inches is irrelevant, because the whole idea is to align baseball and moon as closely as possible.

(https://i.imgur.com/VnDAtUA.png)

Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: Tumeni on August 31, 2018, 12:47:40 PM
Here's a neater version;

(https://i.imgur.com/wf8hhKq.png)
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 16, 2018, 05:53:51 PM
This is great work, Bobby.
I don’t know what close range perspective effect means. The original question was how come the terminator of the moon doesn’t line up with where the sun is. If the moon is being lit by the sun then it should. Your experiment proves that even though it may look like there is no alignment, a straight line between the moon and the sun does line up and the apparent lack of alignment is in fact an optical illusion. This is another good example why the FE premise of trusting one’s senses is flawed. Our senses our limited and they can be tricked.

Also, if this WAS a problem then it would be a problem for the FE moon too which is also lit by the sun in most FE models.
Just to add, I saw this illusion for myself this evening. I could see a crescent moon to my left, fairly high in the sky. The sun was setting to my right so was fairly low in the sky and to the naked eye it didn’t look like a line perpendicular to the terminator would point at the sun. So I got a piece of string and stretched it between them and, sure enough, it lined up perfectly
Title: Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
Post by: iamcpc on January 03, 2019, 08:28:21 PM

I disagree. My diagram was very poor. Maybe this one will be more clear. There is no where on the black line in which you would see a dark part of the moon. The only parts of the moon which you would be able to see from that far away would be lit by the sun.
It wouldn't be 100%.

The only place from which you could see 100% of the moon lit by the sun in that diagram would be from directly below the sun, and that's assuming you could penetrate the light of the sun and see through the sun itself.

This is the same sort of geometric objection to being able to see 100% full moon from round earth. The alignment that that would require puts the earth in the path of the sun and causes an eclipse, so you can't see a 100% full moon. The moon has to be off axis, and even though that's only 0.52° and the moon may be 99.9% illuminated, there will still be a slight terminator due to that non-alignment.

Fine.

But that applies to flat earth too. Even in the extreme shown in your diagram, in which the moon is many times the altitude of the sun, anyone who is off axis from that alignment will be off axis from seeing the 100% full moon. The arrangement of earth-sun-moon is just in a different order, but it's the same geometric dilemma. You could probably come up with a theoretical distance for which a 32-mile wide moon can be above the sun such that you can find a spot on earth below the sun that is less than 0.52° off axis, but then that's going to be daytime for the observer. To be off axis and still on the night side of earth, and make that angle <0.52°, you're talking about a moon that's 500,000 - 600,000 miles higher than the sun.  Really?

You can't have your geometry issues with round earth full moon impossibilities and casually ad hoc them away for flat earth too.

Bobby I really struggle to understand why no one other than me stepped up to the diagram challenge. The more I think about this the more I agree that the wiki can't possibly be correct. Unless someone draws a better diagram that can help me understand better I am of the opinion that the sun and moon can't be a the same altitude and have a situation where there is a full moon visible everywhere on earth.  It's too bad the wiki will never be updated.

The only way when i think about it that would be possible if the moon generated it's own light or the full moon was not lit by the sun which again contracts the wiki. It's too bad the wiki will never be updated.