*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6563
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« on: June 22, 2018, 01:55:56 AM »
I'm starting a Wiki entry on why we always see the same face to the moon in Flat Earth Theory. Comments or additions are welcomed.

Why do we always see the same face of the moon?

Perspective Explanation

Proponents of Perspective Theory assert that there is evidence suggesting that overhead objects receding into the distance will rotate increasingly slower as those bodies increase in altitude.

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.

The logical conclusion is that as a body increases in altitude, the slower it will turn to perspective. If we were to increase the relationship by several orders of magnitude, one may suggest that the moon is at such a great distance in the sky that it hardly changes angle at all when it moves over the observer's limited viewing area.

Ancient Greek Perspective

The Ancient Greeks believed in a Continuous Universe, where the perspective lines receded infinitely and continuously into the distance. Perspective Theory empiricists generally question this concept and hold that the foundations of perspective should be based on real world occurrences, rather than ancient hypothetical concepts of a perfect universe.


Electromagnetic Accelerator Explanation

Proponents of the Electromagnetic Accelerator assert that the light of the moon reflects a similar scene to what happens to the light of the sun. The light of the moon's face is bending upwards, and when the observer sees the moon at the horizon the face of the moon is presenting itself to the observer.

<Electromagnetic Accelerator curving light diagram, replacing the sun with the moon>
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 05:44:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2018, 02:39:43 AM »
I hear the perspective explanation, but it's not convincing. You've championed observation and empiricism, but to defend the perspective explanation you use a thought-experiment analogy.

In the very next paragraph, you reject the Greek logical hypotheticals, saying "empiricists...hold that the foundations of perspective should be based on real world occurrences..."  A giant Rubik's cube 10,000 feet above isn't a real world occurrence. You could at least offer a simulation of the giant cube receding into the distance to demonstrate what it might look like, but I don't believe such an thing would present itself the way you say it would.

On the inclusion of EA, I think it should be noted that the EA and perspective explanations for the phenomenon are mutually exclusive.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2018, 08:09:18 AM »
Proponents of Perspective Theory assert that there is evidence suggesting that overhead objects receding into the distance will rotate increasingly slower as those bodies increase in altitude.
First of all, the ancients believed that light passes from the eye to the object. This is the basis of Euclid’s optics. Since the seventeenth century, when Christoph Scheiner found that light casts an image on the retina, we have believed the other way round. The reason we believe objects look smaller in the distance is because the light passing from the object subtend a smaller visual angle. In general, angular distance decreases with distance. This is a physical fact about light, not ‘perspective’.
Quote
Proponents of the Electromagnetic Accelerator assert that the light of the moon reflects a similar scene to what happens to the light of the sun. The light of the moon's face is bending upwards, and when the observer sees the moon at the horizon the face of the moon is presenting itself to the observer.
This will not work if the bending is uniform, or we would not see the moon at all. There needs to be more bending from the part of the moon more distant from the observer, so that it will still look circular, and not like an ellipse.
Quote
If we were to increase the relationship by several orders of magnitude, one may suggest that the moon is at such a great distance in the sky that it hardly changes angle at all when it moves over the observer's limited viewing area.
The conventional explanation for the 1 degree of diurnal libration is that the moon is 385,000 km from the earth.

If the moon is a disc not a sphere, you also need to explain phases of the moon. You also need to explain why the moon is full when it rises as the sun sets. The conventional explanation is that it is a sphere, and light from the sun passes across the earth at sunset, striking the whole hemisphere of the moon. And to explain why, if the sun is a spotlight, the light still reaches the moon while we are in darkness etc.

There is nothing like a complete theory in the wiki.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10198
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2018, 09:11:05 AM »
On the inclusion of EA, I think it should be noted that the EA and perspective explanations for the phenomenon are mutually exclusive.
Agreed. This is one of those things that we'd consider obvious, but newcomers likely won't. This is an area we've neglected before. Starting the article with a quick disclaimer on there being multiple competing theories would be very beneficial.

The perspective explanation is not one I personally support, but its content is laid out and explained clearly. The thought experiment strikes me as a useful way of explaining the argument.

The EA explanation will need some good diagrams to make sure it's understood. Already we can see edby making erroneous statements about its assumptions, which is something we need to address. If his argument were correct, then the Moon would also be invisible on a Round Earth. Of course, we know that both arguments are flawed, but the equivalence has not been sufficiently highlighted.

I currently have a backlog of Wiki corrections I've promised to make, but if I manage to clear this at some point, I'd be happy to try and assist. Don't hold your breath, though :P
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2018, 02:22:50 PM »

Now imagine that we have a giant solved Rubix Cube 10,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the Rubix Cube recedes away from you into the distance it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the Rubix Cube and for the white underside to go away.

Give me a size of the giant Rubik's Cube and I'll work out the math and draw up a visualization of this.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2018, 05:14:46 PM »
If his argument were correct, then the Moon would also be invisible on a Round Earth. Of course, we know that both arguments are flawed, but the equivalence has not been sufficiently highlighted.
Which argument?

[edit]I thought about this again on the train today. If Tom is correct, the moon presents the same visual angle to all observers, so it appears the same size. So you could in theory model the propagation of light for observers at different distances.

But you need the model of light propagation. I am not saying it is wrong, but it would require highly complex modelling. Then think about experiments to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 05:22:34 PM by edby »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2018, 06:25:57 PM »

Now imagine that we have a giant solved Rubix Cube 10,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the Rubix Cube recedes away from you into the distance it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the Rubix Cube and for the white underside to go away.

Give me a size of the giant Rubik's Cube and I'll work out the math and draw up a visualization of this.
Is a height (distance) to size (width) ratio of 107:1 okay? The wiki says, "The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

A giant Rubik's cube would be 107' on edge at 10,000 feet given that wiki ratio. I'll go with that unless you have an objection.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6563
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2018, 08:34:13 PM »
I hear the perspective explanation, but it's not convincing. You've championed observation and empiricism, but to defend the perspective explanation you use a thought-experiment analogy.

It's fine to use rationalism as a preliminary method of inquiry. Empiricists make conclusions based on what concept has more real world evidence.

In this particular case, I don't believe that there are many good examples to easily point to -- and so a a thought experiment is the best that can be done until further evidence is collected.

Quote
In the very next paragraph, you reject the Greek logical hypotheticals, saying "empiricists...hold that the foundations of perspective should be based on real world occurrences..."  A giant Rubik's cube 10,000 feet above isn't a real world occurrence.

That thought experiment is certainly more empirical than an equation on a piece of paper -- it causes the user to think about how he or she has experienced the world to behave.

Quote
On the inclusion of EA, I think it should be noted that the EA and perspective explanations for the phenomenon are mutually exclusive.

Agreed.


Now imagine that we have a giant solved Rubix Cube 10,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the Rubix Cube recedes away from you into the distance it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the Rubix Cube and for the white underside to go away.

Give me a size of the giant Rubik's Cube and I'll work out the math and draw up a visualization of this.

I don't think it really matters how big the Rubix cube is. I used the word giant because if it is left as a regular Rubix Cube, the "winning" tactic would be to remark that a Rubix Cube can't be seen at 10,000 feet.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 09:23:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2018, 09:48:01 PM »
That thought experiment is certainly more empirical than an equation on a piece of paper -- it causes the user to think about how he or she has experienced the world to behave.

I don't agree, but at least I understand, so I won't quibble.

I don't think it really matters how big the Rubix cube is.
Working out the perspective angles, the size of the object relative to its distance matters.

Frankly, I can find no way to make it so that the bottom of an object always appears to be facing an observer as it moves away on a parallel plane. It looks unnatural if I model it that way, like your diagram of planes coming up from the horizon that look like they're shooting up into space.

It's your wiki, of course, and you can approach explanations however you like. I'm grateful for the invitation to weigh in; but I don't think that entry for why only one side of the moon always faces the flat earth makes sense. It's certainly not convincing; least not as it's presented so far. If we could replace the 30-mile wide moon with a 30-mile wide Rubik's cube, and place it in a parallel plane 3000 miles above the flat earth with the white side facing down, I can't picture how the vertical sides would never come into view.  If we can model that somehow, either on "paper" or making a scale model with practical effects, that would be persuasive.

But to do either of those things, we'd have to have a distance/size ratio that scales appropriately for what it is we'd be modeling.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 02:20:53 AM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2018, 09:58:31 PM »
It may be worth pointing out that here on Earth we do observe a very tiny variation in the portion of the Moon seen from different points at different times. If you work it out with the scales suggested by the standard model, you'll see a very tiny angle between the Moon and opposite sides of the globe. I simply point this out because maybe this tiny amount of variation could help you to resolve your mathematical problem.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2018, 10:42:48 PM »
It may be worth pointing out that here on Earth we do observe a very tiny variation in the portion of the Moon seen from different points at different times. If you work it out with the scales suggested by the standard model, you'll see a very tiny angle between the Moon and opposite sides of the globe. I simply point this out because maybe this tiny amount of variation could help you to resolve your mathematical problem.
If you're talking about lunar libration, I'd rather keep that out of the mix. For what Tom is proposing, I don't think we need to address that.

Or were you touching on something else?

Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2018, 10:56:16 PM »
It may be worth pointing out that here on Earth we do observe a very tiny variation in the portion of the Moon seen from different points at different times. If you work it out with the scales suggested by the standard model, you'll see a very tiny angle between the Moon and opposite sides of the globe. I simply point this out because maybe this tiny amount of variation could help you to resolve your mathematical problem.
If you're talking about lunar libration, I'd rather keep that out of the mix. For what Tom is proposing, I don't think we need to address that.

Or were you touching on something else?

I mean simply this... the radius of the (round) Earth is reported to be 3,959 mi. The distance to the Moon is reported to average around 238,900 mi. Imagine two viewers at the equator both looking at the moon at the same time. (Assume the moon is directly over the equator for simplicity.) Place one observer at 0 degrees longitude, and the other at 180 degrees - exact opposite sides of the Earth. The observer at 0 sees the moon from 0.95 degrees east of straight-on while the opposite observer is looking at 0.95 degrees west of straight-on. They both take a photo and compare. The photos see the moon from SLIGHTLY different angles... a total difference just under 2 degrees.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2018, 11:08:28 PM »
I gotcha; but I don't think that contributes to the question the TFES wiki is hoping to answer for a flat earth. And as for globe earth, it's good enough for this topic if we just agree we see 50% of the moon, generally speaking.

The concept that we are seeing the "bottom half" of the moon at moonrise/moonset and that's the same "bottom half" all through its arc, yet it's on a parallel path over the flat earth, is tough for me to fathom. I don't even want to start down the path of why we might take note that we are (collectively) seeing more than half of the moon from earth. That is unless Tom thinks it helps explain the phenomenon on a flat earth. But I think it bolsters globe earth and not flat earth, so I'd just as soon keep it simple and ignore those.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2018, 07:27:06 AM »
It may be worth pointing out that here on Earth we do observe a very tiny variation in the portion of the Moon seen from different points at different times. If you work it out with the scales suggested by the standard model, you'll see a very tiny angle between the Moon and opposite sides of the globe. I simply point this out because maybe this tiny amount of variation could help you to resolve your mathematical problem.
If you're talking about lunar libration, I'd rather keep that out of the mix. For what Tom is proposing, I don't think we need to address that.

Or were you touching on something else?

I mean simply this... the radius of the (round) Earth is reported to be 3,959 mi. The distance to the Moon is reported to average around 238,900 mi. Imagine two viewers at the equator both looking at the moon at the same time. (Assume the moon is directly over the equator for simplicity.) Place one observer at 0 degrees longitude, and the other at 180 degrees - exact opposite sides of the Earth. The observer at 0 sees the moon from 0.95 degrees east of straight-on while the opposite observer is looking at 0.95 degrees west of straight-on. They both take a photo and compare. The photos see the moon from SLIGHTLY different angles... a total difference just under 2 degrees.
Diurnal libration.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2018, 07:34:47 AM »
If we could replace the 30-mile wide moon with a 30-mile wide Rubik's cube, and place it in a parallel plane 3000 miles above the flat earth with the white side facing down, I can't picture how the vertical sides would never come into view.  If we can model that somehow, either on "paper" or making a scale model with practical effects, that would be persuasive.
The analogy would be the cube moving to eye level, although very far away. Then, if light travels in approximately straight lines, you would be seeing the sides, not the bottom, of the cube.

Tom’s argument will be that light curves, i.e. light emitted vertically from the bottom of the cube curves around until travelling horizontally. Then the observers far away would see the cube as if they were standing underneath. Also, the light from the side of the cube facing them would curve upwards so they no longer see it.  Perhaps this is possible, but how do people who are actually standing underneath the cube still see it, given the light is now curving away from them?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2018, 01:06:40 PM »
That's the electromagnetic accelerator (EA) theory. I'm questioning the perspective explanation.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2018, 01:31:38 PM »
That's the electromagnetic accelerator (EA) theory. I'm questioning the perspective explanation.
So in the 'perspective' explanation, light travels in straight lines? But then how is the visual angle subtended by the moon when it is distant from us the same as the angle when it is much closer? And how would the bottom of the moon at eye level appear to be facing us? I can't even begin to imagine that.

Perhaps the perspective theory involves vision passing from the eye to the object, rather than the other way round, as Euclid thought? But it would still have to be curved.

I have urged Tom to outline a theory of vision consistent with this.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2018, 01:40:22 PM »
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.
 

This is entirely correct, and is explained by parallax. By this means we can establish that the moon is about 385,000km away. This is inconsistent with FE, but the only rationale Tom gives is in an old thread here:

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
My emphasis. Stellar parallax was how Bessel discovered that the stars were a really really long distance away. What Tom seems to be arguing is that the ‘laws of perspective’ work differently in this case. But once again, I don’t understand how perspective and angular distance can be different here, unless we assume bending of light.