Rama Set

• 7238
• Round and round...
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #40 on: June 27, 2018, 03:01:33 AM »
That's not proof Tom.  Try again.

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

How do we see the sun through the earth?

You've asserted a thought experiment, nothing substantive with false premises, the sun is not smaller than the Earth in the RE model.  In fact, it is 100 times the diameter.  Prove that a star, 1.4M kms in diameter, 150M kms away, that radiates light in all directions, can be blocked by a planet 13,000 kms in diameter at a distance of 149.9M kms.   You don't accept thought experiments from anyone, so I won't accept one from you.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Rama Set

• 7238
• Round and round...
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #41 on: June 27, 2018, 03:18:45 AM »
It would seem to me that since the Sun is not in fact smaller than the Earth in the RE model that basic geometry would tell us that there should be a minimum distance that a viewer would have to be from the sun in order to receive its rays. I am not sure what that calculation is, but that would be important to your proof Tom
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

model 29

• 422
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2018, 03:34:17 AM »
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

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

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

If the sun is seen to be smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.
No Tom, with a sun that is bigger than Earth, Earth's shadow will become smaller further out.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8036
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2018, 03:56:42 AM »
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here it is again:

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

How do we see the sun through the earth?

« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 08:25:02 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

Rama Set

• 7238
• Round and round...
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2018, 04:06:51 AM »
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here is the proof again:

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

How do we see the sun through the earth?

I dont see any proof here.  You haven't made any measurements, or observations.  At best this is a hypothesis.  Here is a guide to calculating umbra and penumbra.  Perhaps you could just illustrate the errors in the guide?  Should be simple enough no?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

model 29

• 422
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2018, 04:17:25 AM »
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here is the proof again:

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

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

Earth's shadow shrinks the further it is from Earth.

Bobby Shafto

• 1390
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #46 on: June 27, 2018, 05:58:19 AM »
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

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

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

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

How or if that shadow is cast upon the moon is dependent on the size of the earth, size of the moon, their distance apart, and their alignment with the sun.

Curious Squirrel

• 1338
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #47 on: June 27, 2018, 12:50:42 PM »
It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here it is again:

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

How do we see the sun through the earth?
This isn't even a correct hypothesis. First you're talking about a location 'behind' the Earth such as where the moon is, where the Earth is still bigger than the sun in the sky. Then you talk about a location much farther back, where the Earth has shrunk enough to appear smaller than the sun (such as on Mars where Earth is similar in size to and will transit the sun, like Venus). Your 'proof' is nothing more than stringing two disconnected things together and claiming they in fact ARE connected.

Tumeni

• 2446
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2018, 02:14:57 PM »
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

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

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

With those attributes, the shadow should be increasing.

Whether it is shown increasing, parallel or decreasing, that has no impact on the point being made.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Tumeni

• 2446
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2018, 02:21:02 PM »
"The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth at that distance. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet.

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

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

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

Can we go back to the Moon now?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

ICanScienceThat

• 328
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2018, 04:43:45 PM »
For Tom (and everyone else). The mathematical investigation of just how much of the moon is illuminated under the standard RE model.

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

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

Tom, please tell me, is 99.7% sufficiently far from 100% that you wish to challenge this further, or are you happy to acknowledge that RE predicts less than perfect full moons and we can move on?

edby

• 1214
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #51 on: June 27, 2018, 05:15:11 PM »
Fabulous video. That number depends on the maximum ecliptic latitude of 5 degrees. Tonight's full moon has a latitude of just over 2 degrees. Using the formula in that video gives an illumination of 99.977%. Camera is ready.

Note the ecliptic latitude on 27 July will be 16 arcminutes, which will be 100% illumination.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 05:17:29 PM by edby »

TomInAustin

• 1212
• Round Duh
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #52 on: June 27, 2018, 07:49:25 PM »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

That rule would pretty much invalidate the FE theory, right?
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

nickrulercreator

• 279
• It's round. That much is true.
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2018, 02:24:29 AM »
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

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

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

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

It's not a matter of what the Moon sees, though, nor the Sun's size in the sky apparent to Earth. It's a matter of the Sun's physical size in relation to the Earth. If the Sun is larger, it doesn't matter how far away the Sun is, the umbra of Earth's shadow will always decrease in size. That's how geometry works.
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8036
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2018, 06:47:31 AM »
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

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

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

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

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

I believe that you are incorrect, Bobby is incorrect, and Rama Set is incorrect. The sun would need to be seen larger than the earth for the rays to reach the observer where the rays meet. It is a matter of what the observer sees. The answer to my problem was answered by model 29 above, where he states that where the rays meet the sun does get to be bigger than the earth due to different scales of perspective resizing. That is the only explanation to the conundrum. For that he gets a gold star.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 07:02:46 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 #55 on: June 29, 2018, 06:57:51 AM »
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

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

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

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

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

No, you are incorrect. Bobby is incorrect. And Rama Set is incorrect. The  sun would need to be larger than the earth for the rays to reach the observer where the rays meet. It is a matter of what the moon/observer sees. The answer to my problem was answered by model 29 above, where he states that where the rays meet the sun does get to be bigger than the moon due to different scales of perspective resizing. For that he gets a gold star.
Tom, have you reviewed my video where I attempted to explain how the full moon math really works? I sense a new video based on this shadow question.

rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #56 on: June 29, 2018, 09:09:00 AM »
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but so is Tom Bishop.
Quote from: The Flat Earth
However, in order to see a full moon with 100% totality under a you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on. But according to the geometry of RET we would never see the daylight side face-on, otherwise the earth would get in the way of the sunlight. There should always be a portion of the moon that is unlit. 100% totality should be impossible, no matter how much mental gymnastics are done with the scale. If we are not looking at the daylight side face on, complete totality is impossible.

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

On a related topic, two years ago I started a thread claiming that on a flat earth a full moon is impossible to everyone How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 10:22:27 PM ».
Though it really claimed that no-one on a flat earth could see a full moon.

Tumeni

• 2446
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #57 on: June 29, 2018, 10:38:27 AM »
The sun would need to be seen larger than the earth for the rays to reach the observer where the rays meet. It is a matter of what the observer sees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the issue here?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 11:01:04 AM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Tumeni

• 2446
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #58 on: June 29, 2018, 12:18:43 PM »
Tell that to the astronomers at the University of Nebraska:
Quote
A new moon is 0% illuminated (completely dark) and a full moon is 100% illuminated (fully lit)

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

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

You really don't think that they're approximating for the purposes of basic, starting-point educational material (as opposed to advanced astronomical studies)?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Rama Set

• 7238
• Round and round...
Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #59 on: June 29, 2018, 12:46:47 PM »
Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?
You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

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

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

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

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

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

It actually doesn’t matter what you believe. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. You are simply incorrect in your conception of the problem.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.