Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Full moon impossible?
« on: June 23, 2018, 07:52:48 AM »
The wiki argues that a full moon is impossible.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory

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

So, while still not nearly the right scale, I suggest it is more like this.
Thus it is perfectly possible for all the area of the moon visible from the earth to be fully lit by the sun, i.e. 100% ‘full moon’.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 08:26:16 AM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2018, 08:42:19 AM »
The diagram below may be helpful. If the moon is completely within the umbra, we have a total eclipse, if partly, then a partial eclipse. If wholly within the penumbra, a total penumbral eclipse. If just outside, then full moon, which as the diagram suggests, is more likely to be seen in the daytime, or around twilight.

(But again, it's horribly out of scale).

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2018, 09:02:22 AM »
OK, so it may just be possible to see a Full Moon at Moonrise, but only for a few minutes. The rest of the time, humans only see 97%, 96% of the lit surface due to the offset/misalignment of the Earth and Moon .... but so what?

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

Full Moon is a definition of where the Moon is in space, not of what each and every human can actually see.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2018, 09:22:09 AM »
OK, so it may just be possible to see a Full Moon at Moonrise, but only for a few minutes. The rest of the time, humans only see 97%, 96% of the lit surface due to the offset/misalignment of the Earth and Moon .... but so what?

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

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

[edit] Sorry wrong way round. Fixed.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 11:25:43 AM by edby »

Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2018, 05:48:04 AM »
I'm not sure what you've decided to do here, but well-informed REs will tell you simply that we all accept "Full Moon" to mean the fullest it gets that month. It does not need to be 100% illuminated to count as "full".

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2018, 06:17:56 PM »
Tell that to the astronomers at the University of Nebraska:

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

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

Highline College:

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

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

Sonoma State University:

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

Etc etc etc.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 06:21:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2018, 06:24:45 PM »
Tell that to the astronomers at the University of Nebraska:

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

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

Highline College:

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

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

Sonoma:

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

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

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

Perhaps we should contact each of those websites to correct them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2018, 06:26:47 PM »
Lets see evidence beyond an RET equation that the moon only gets 96 or 97% full as Edby states.

I can easily find a large number of quotes from astronomy and education websites that mentions the 100%.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 06:29:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2018, 06:34:03 PM »
Lets see evidence beyond an RET equation that the moon only gets 96 or 97% full as Edby states.

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

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

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

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


« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 06:40:00 PM by edby »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2018, 06:39:30 PM »
100% illumination of the moon's face means 100%.

Lets see evidence that contradicts those astronomers, showing that the full moon is only 97% lit.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 06:41:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2018, 06:41:19 PM »
100% illumination of the moon' face lit means 100%.

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

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

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

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

Absolutely correct. Not 98% etc.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 06:42:57 PM by edby »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2018, 06:42:42 PM »
If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2018, 06:45:59 PM »
If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.
I don't think the 97% is a known thing at all. Full moon, 100% illuminated in the sense that all (=100%) of the side visible to the earth is lit up. Where do you get this 97% thing from?

Are you confusing it with libration? I think you are.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2018, 06:50:06 PM »
Does any of that strike as if perhaps we're arguing semantics rather than the actual theory? I believe the point should still be valid even if several websites quote approximate numbers seemingly as if they were precise. Wouldn't you agree?
They are not approximate numbers.

Remember a percent is one number (numerator) divided by another (denominator). The numerator is the amount lit by the sun. The denominator is the amount visible from earth. Full moon is when that number is 100%, i.e. every part visible from earth (which is clearly not all of the moon) is lit by the sun.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2018, 06:50:44 PM »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2018, 06:52:24 PM »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
I am trying to explain what 'percent' means.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2018, 07:06:49 PM »
Do you accept that the moon's orbital plane is inclined by 5° to the ecliptic plane, or do you want evidence for that also?

Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2018, 07:17:46 PM »
If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.
Ohhh... I completely misunderstood your position Tom. My mistake. I will attempt to clarify.

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

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

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

Do I have this right now?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2018, 07:27:45 PM »
If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.
Ohhh... I completely misunderstood your position Tom. My mistake. I will attempt to clarify.

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

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

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

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

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

According to standard RE models, we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month. Furthermore, the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time.
I certainly do not dispute that. Does anyone dispute this? I believe we are all in agreement on this.
I agree that the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time. But again, why is  a 100% full moon impossible in RET?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 07:30:02 PM by edby »

Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2018, 07:52:10 PM »
According to standard RE models, we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month. Furthermore, the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time.
I certainly do not dispute that. Does anyone dispute this? I believe we are all in agreement on this.
I agree that the amount of moon we see actually varies by just a tiny bit depending on where we are on Earth at the time. But again, why is  a 100% full moon impossible in RET?
Please re-read that. I was careful NOT to say that 100% full moon is impossible in RET. I said, "we will not see 100% perfect full moons every month." By this I mean that we get what we call a "full moon" every lunar month, but even though we call it "full," most of the time it is not perfectly 100% illuminated. Do you agree with this, or should I get into the math (5 degree inclination and all that...)?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 07:56:03 PM by ICanScienceThat »