ICanScienceThat

• 328
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2018, 08:10:41 PM »
I would appreciate it if you'd remove that section from the Wiki because it is a misrepresentation of what astronomy texts say. They may say 100%, and my point is that 99.7% is certainly close enough to 100% that you would stop quibbling over it. 99.7% is not the MAXIMUM illumination. I clearly stated that was the MINIMUM. And I actually said it goes to 100%.

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

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

From earlier:

Quote
Angular Size of the Sun from the Moon

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

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

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

Angular Size of the Earth from the Moon

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

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

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

0.5315 / 2 = 0.2656
1.899 / 2 = 0.9495

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you say to that?

Bobby's link to the Space.com article is a really good one. Very concise and clear. Not mathy at all. Good read.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8036
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2018, 10:04:35 PM »
Bobby, look at the video ICanScienceThat made for us. Even with that scenario, a 100% full moon is still not possible:

Even if that is the case, so what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the cycle of the phases is shorter than most calendar months, the phase of the Moon at the very beginning of the month usually repeats at the very end of the month. When there are two Full Moons in a month (which occurs, on average, every 2.7 years), the second one is called a "Blue Moon". [/b]
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 10:19:01 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8036
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #82 on: June 30, 2018, 10:06:10 PM »
Problem #2

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

The US NAVY Round Earth calculator has Moon Illumination values:

Ie.

0.97 illuminated
0.98 illuminated
1.00 illuminated

Lets look at the lunar eclipse for Jan 31, 2018

On Form B we put in the following:

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

Longitude: 0 West
Latitude: 0 North

0N, 0W is the Prime Meridian, and sits on the equator: https://www.thoughtco.com/prime-meridian-and-the-equator-intersect-4070819

On the previous day before the Full Moon, on Jan 30 2018, at the equator, we see:

Quote
Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420

o  ,    o  ,
0 00,   0 00

Altitude and Azimuth of the Moon
Jan 30, 2018

Universal Time

Altitude    Azimuth    Fraction
(E of N)  Illuminated

h  m         o           o

00:00       61.7       316.7       0.96
00:10       60.0       313.6       0.96
00:20       58.2       310.8       0.96
00:30       56.4       308.4       0.96

...

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

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

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

Quote
Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420

o  ,    o  ,
0 00,   0 00

Altitude and Azimuth of the Moon
Jan 31, 2018

Universal Time

Altitude    Azimuth    Fraction
(E of N)  Illuminated

h  m         o           o

00:00       70.7       345.5       1.00
00:10       69.9       339.0       1.00
00:20       69.0       333.0       1.00
00:30       67.8       327.7       1.00

...

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

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

So what gives? The Flat Earther Inkitham's 10 year old diagram that he scrawled on a paint application is right about astronomy, but the authority on the Sun and Moon, the US Navy, is wrong about astronomy?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 10:45:47 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

ICanScienceThat

• 328
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #83 on: June 30, 2018, 10:21:45 PM »
As we discussed earlier, at the equator a 100% Full Moon is impossible in the Round Earth Theory. 99.989% was the maximum value at the equator. A Full Moon may be possible at very high latitudes on rare occasions when the moon is lowest near the earth's umbra, however.

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

Ie.

0.97% illiminated
0.98% illuminated
1.00% illuminated

Yes. they show it out to 2 decimal places, but they did NOT show it in %. You added that. The moon is CLEARLY not 1.00% illuminated. Right?  Just a typo there on your part. Fix that decimal point and get back to us. No shame. We all make mistrakes. Just fix it and I think you'll see my point.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8036
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #84 on: June 30, 2018, 10:42:56 PM »
You are right. 0.99 is the same as 99%.

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

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

I don't mind expanding on the Wiki with some of this information we have discussed, and your recommendations. We clearly see that astronomical authorities are incorrect about the Round Earth Theory. The Full Moon doesn't happen every month, and everywhere on earth, in RET, as the Navy's website and its Round Earth model implies.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 10:53:55 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Bobby Shafto

• 1390
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #85 on: June 30, 2018, 10:52:29 PM »
The US Navy is inaccurate. Not only do they state that a 100% full moon happens every month on their website, so do their calculators. You may be assert that they are rounding up, but it is still a technical inaccuracy for an astronomical authority.

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

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

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

Looking forward to how the log in the FET's eye about how a "full" moon in FET can even reach a 90% illuminated phase is addressed. I'll forgive RE astronomers for their <0.1% laxity on moon fullness.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8036
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #86 on: June 30, 2018, 11:03:11 PM »
Good job finding that speck in the RE astronomy eye, Tom.

I didn't create that diagram or make this thread or come up with this argument. edby created this thread. He insisted on arguing about it and this is where it has brought us. The article was right, and it was dozens of Round Earth astronomy sources who were wrong.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 11:07:04 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

ICanScienceThat

• 328
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #87 on: June 30, 2018, 11:06:08 PM »
0.99 is the same as 99%. It is not 100%

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Bobby, please read this too. There isn't anything inaccurate about it. 100% full moons DO happen every month. 100.0% full moons do NOT happen every month. As far as I've seen so far, nobody has said that they do. Certainly not the Navy's site.

Bobby Shafto

• 1390
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #88 on: June 30, 2018, 11:09:18 PM »
Good job finding that speck in the RE astronomy eye, Tom.

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

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

I don't agree with everything you said to argue your point, of course; but ultimately I agree with your quibble: a 100% illuminated moon is not possible in the conventional dynamics and configuration of spherical sun, earth and moon. 100% full is "good enough for government work," as they say; but it's not truly 100%.

ICanScienceThat

• 328
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #89 on: June 30, 2018, 11:11:45 PM »
Good job finding that speck in the RE astronomy eye, Tom.

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

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

I don't agree with everything you said to argue your point, of course; but ultimately I agree with your quibble: a 100% illuminated moon is not possible in the conventional dynamics and configuration of spherical sun, earth and moon. 100% full is "good enough for government work," as they say; but it's not truly 100%.
Once again, 100% is not wrong. 100.0% would be wrong, and I think we all agree on that, but if you're only going to quote out to the nearest 1%, what are you going to say when the answer is 0.998? How is that not 100%?

ICanScienceThat

• 328
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #90 on: July 01, 2018, 01:52:57 AM »
I've thought about it, and I think I'm just being too vague. Let me make it more clear...

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

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

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

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

I'm going to say that again...

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

I object to the implication that RET predicts anything less than that. Any such implication would be false, and we've gone through all the numbers together on this, so I know that you realize such an implication is false.

rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #91 on: July 01, 2018, 02:03:34 AM »
You are right. 0.99 is the same as 99%.

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

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

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

You complained earlier that this was off-topic, so on your suggestion Bobby Shafto opened a new thread Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?.

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

All flat-earthers ignoring such questions certainly implies that there is no satisfactory flat-earth explanation for the lunar phases we see.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8036
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #92 on: July 01, 2018, 02:16:51 AM »
That is not an inaccurate statement but had they stated "that a 1.000 illuminated moon happens every month" it would have been a different matter.

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

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

Even if that is the case, so what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the cycle of the phases is shorter than most calendar months, the phase of the Moon at the very beginning of the month usually repeats at the very end of the month. When there are two Full Moons in a month (which occurs, on average, every 2.7 years), the second one is called a "Blue Moon". [/b]
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 02:44:46 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

ICanScienceThat

• 328
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #93 on: July 01, 2018, 03:03:46 AM »
Tom, I must conclude at this point that you are being deliberately obtuse. Over and over again, it has been explained that within a tolerance of 1%, 100% and 99.7% are the same thing. You avoid responding to this and just keep repeating, "but they said 100%." There is no way you misunderstood this all this time. It is very clear.

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

I'll grant you this, it's an excellent debate strategy. People will see the long explanations and the details and all they will come away with is, "but they said 100%". I don't know about you, but that's very sad to me. A whole lot of people will come away from this completely missing the point because you have successfully distracted them from it. And to think, you must have done it on purpose. There's just no way you still cannot understand that 100% could mean anywhere from 99.5% - 100.5%. You must be doing this on purpose at this point.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8036
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #94 on: July 01, 2018, 04:02:57 AM »
I don' think that I'm distracting anything. The wiki article and diagram was pretty clear that the author was talking about technicalities. This is why he said in the diagram that the full moon was only possible at a high latitude location when the moon was in a certain position near the umbra/horizon, for a short period of time, and that everwhere else it is impossible.

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

If the Round Earth authorities want to round up in their authoratative materials that's fine too. They should at least put a disclaimer on the website and calculators that they are fudging things, however.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 04:06:50 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

ICanScienceThat

• 328
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #95 on: July 01, 2018, 05:42:02 AM »
I don' think that I'm distracting anything. The wiki article and diagram was pretty clear that the author was talking about technicalities. This is why he said in the diagram that the full moon was only possible at a high latitude location when the moon was in a certain position near the umbra/horizon, for a short period of time, and that everwhere else it is impossible.

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

If the Round Earth authorities want to round up in their authoratative materials that's fine too. They should at least put a disclaimer on the website and calculators that they are fudging things, however.
I'd be happy to write them a letter. They clearly aren't fudging anything, but a disclaimer would be great. Would you like to consult on the wording of that letter? Would you like to provide a list of places (websites and such) that you have found that could use such a disclaimer?

Tumeni

• 2446
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #96 on: July 01, 2018, 08:56:32 AM »
The US Navy is the US authority on Sun and Moon astronomy. And even they say that the moon goes to 100% fullness every month:
Quote
The percent of the Moon's surface illuminated is a more refined, quantitative description of the Moon's appearance than is the phase. Considering the Moon as a circular disk, the ratio of the area illuminated by direct sunlight to its total area is the fraction of the Moon's surface illuminated; multiplied by 100, it is the percent illuminated. At New Moon the percent illuminated is 0; at First and Last Quarters it is 50%; and at Full Moon it is 100%. During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%.

So what? It says it's 100% illuminated. That's true. Doesn't say all that illumination is visible to every observer on Earth
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2018, 12:12:10 PM »
That is not an inaccurate statement but had they stated "that a 1.000 illuminated moon happens every month" it would have been a different matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AllAroundTheWorld

• 3913
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #98 on: July 03, 2018, 08:10:19 AM »
So...it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Wiki page claim that

"100% totality should be impossible"

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

I can't really see the point of that Wiki page. It's like finding a website which claims there are 365 days in a year and going "ah-ha! they're up to something!"
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

edby

• 1214
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #99 on: July 03, 2018, 08:35:06 AM »
So...it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Wiki page claim that

"100% totality should be impossible"

is actually correct ...

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

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

« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 08:42:10 AM by edby »