#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7958
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #280 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.

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.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2018, 10:39:01 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

#### BillO

• 583
• Huh?
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #281 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?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7958
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #282 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.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2018, 02:55:28 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

#### QED

• 863
• As mad as a hatter.
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #283 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.

The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7958
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #284 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?
"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

#### model 29

• 422
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #285 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.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7958
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #286 on: August 04, 2018, 03:35:00 AM »
"Nah uh"? Convincing stuff.
"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

#### model 29

• 422
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #287 on: August 04, 2018, 03:53:08 AM »
More convincing and honest than your stuff.

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #288 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.

#### Tumeni

• 2446
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #289 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?
=============================
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 on Flat Earth?
« Reply #290 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?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2018, 07:52:09 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 on Flat Earth?
« Reply #291 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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7958
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #292 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.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2018, 08:33:32 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

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7958
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #293 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.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2018, 09:08:51 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

#### Tumeni

• 2446
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #294 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
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #295 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?

#### model 29

• 422
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #296 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?
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.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7958
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #297 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.
"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

#### Tumeni

• 2446
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #298 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.
=============================
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 on Flat Earth?
« Reply #299 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.