*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #300 on: August 04, 2018, 09:07:06 PM »
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?

So I am trying to make sense of your reply, but it is not really intelligible from a scientific point of view. Rowbotham can say whatever he wants, but he provides no solid, reproducible evidence for such claims.

Your projection idea easily fails a basic test of optics and shadows that the greeks could accomplish thousands of years ago. Did you know that?

Yes, that's right, your theory is over 2000 years behind modern thought, and has about as much predictive power as Scientology.

Your model does not predict a projection, as that facet is built into the model a priori.

Even though PG exists mathematically it does not describe our Universe. THAT is the empirical conclusion we have arrived at. Very easy tests can demonstrate this -- like GPS.

I have a question for you, Thomas. How much money do earn by promoting this FE business?
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

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #301 on: August 04, 2018, 10:17:12 PM »
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?
Not really.   in this case if the ball is 2 or 3 feet away from you it going to look essentially that same as if it was 30, 300, 3000, 240,000 feet/miles away etc.  If you bring it down to eye level then you will see that a line normal to the terminator does indeed point at the sun.  Once it's 3 feet way it going to look essentially teh same as if it were a bigger ball 240K miles away.

Quote
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?
Sure.

Quote
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.
No, see above.

Quote
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.
Again, this is not a close-range perspective thing, unless, as I detailed above, you get very, very close.

Here is a modification of the experiment.  Start with the ball at eye level,  Note that a line normal to the terminator points at the sun.  Insert a pencil into the ball along that line such that the pencil is normal to the terminator and points at the sun.  Move the ball toward the moon keeping the pencil normal to the terminator.  Not that this action required that you do not change the orientation of the ball as you move it. At 3 feet away, note that the pencil is still normal to the terminator and that it no longer points at the sun and in fact is parallel to a line normal to the moon's terminator, and that the terminator on the ball and the moon look essentially the same.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8036
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #302 on: August 04, 2018, 10:53:42 PM »
Bill, the "Ball Experiment" is a close range perspective effect. There is no way to get the ball to not point at the sun without taking advantage of close range perspective effects.

Take a look at this animation:



The Ball is pointing at the sun, correct?

The only way to get it to point upwards and away from the sun is to take advantage of close range perspective effects. This is what I am being asked to do.

If the white paper in the above animation were a transparency, it would be possible to do exactly what is done in the animation with the moon in the background and try to match it.

Why am I being asked to do that? It shows nothing about what is occurring to the moon or anything about the nature of the occurrence.

It will need to be shown that perspective effects can affect the geometry of the Round Earth model. Unlike drastic differences in distance ratios at close range; when something is far away from you, it is harder for those close range perspective effects to occur. You would need to travel significant distances to make that happen, in ratio with the new distances.

A pencil 10,000 feet away from the observer isn't going to be subject to close range perspective as easily as a pencil held an arms length away. <-- I believe that you agreed with this.

Under the Round Earth Theory both the sun and moon are far away and are at equal distance from you at all times. They do not change distances radically from you, as the camera changes in relation to the ball in the above animation as compared to the distance to the ball.

[In the Flat Earth model the Sun and Moon do change distance radically from you and in relation to their altitudes, however]

It should be shown that the geometry of the Round Earth model can create such perspective effects.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 12:34:58 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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8036
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #303 on: August 04, 2018, 11:21:03 PM »
Also, one important point, the moon does change angle when it gets closer to the sun and changes its elevation above the horizon. It is not stuck in one permanent perspective angle, as Bill seemes to imply.

From the paper we were talking about: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf



Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2018, 11:26:13 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

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #304 on: August 05, 2018, 01:06:41 AM »
Tom, your dishonesty continues to astound me. You continue to post as if what you were saying meant anything when it's nothing more than gibberish. You simultaneously ignore each of my key points.

You keep trying to convince people that there's something wrong with the RE model, but it works perfectly. We tell you that it matches the ball. You cannot deny that it matches the ball. Instead you try to convince people that matching the ball doesn't matter. How about you tell us, "why does the light on the moon match the light on the ball?"
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 01:10:22 AM by ICanScienceThat »

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #305 on: August 05, 2018, 01:09:38 AM »
Also, one important point, the moon does change angle when it gets closer to the sun and changes its elevation above the horizon. It is not stuck in one permanent perspective angle, as Bill seemes to imply.
I resent the intent of this straw man Tom.  I never suggested or 'implied' any such thing.  I honestly don't think you even inferred it, you're just using it to introduce a point you think you can argue better.  However, this changes nothing.  Neither does that idiotic video you posted above.  It is just yet another straw man and has not the tiniest thing to do with the situation we were talking about.

In that inane video you can see quite clearly the lines look parallel 3 feet away.  It's not until you have the drawing at camera level and an inch or two away do we see the perspective effect you are talking about - which still has nothing to do with our discussion.  Not whatsoever.  If anything, it weakens your position considerably.  You honestly can't expect me to believe you think that video and what we were talking about are related.  If you do, the implications are not very flattering to you.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #306 on: August 05, 2018, 01:15:32 AM »
Also, one important point, the moon does change angle when it gets closer to the sun and changes its elevation above the horizon. It is not stuck in one permanent perspective angle, as Bill seemes to imply.
I resent the intent of this straw man Tom.  I never suggested or 'implied' any such thing.  I honestly don't think you even inferred it, you're just using it to introduce a point you think you can argue better.  However, this changes nothing.  Neither does that idiotic video you posted above.  It is just yet another straw man and has not the tiniest thing to do with the situation we were talking about.

In that inane video you can see quite clearly the lines look parallel 3 feet away.  It's not until you have the drawing at camera level and an inch or two away do we see the perspective effect you are talking about - which still has nothing to do with our discussion.  Not whatsoever.  If anything, it weakens your position considerably.  You honestly can't expect me to believe you think that video and what we were talking about are related.  If you do, the implications are not very flattering to you.
Actually that video shows the terminator illusion just fine. And distance does NOT matter.

Test it out.
1) Draw or choose a straight, horizontal line. It doesn't matter how big or how small. Use a pencil on your desk or a contrail in the sky.
2) Align your view such that you are below it with the line points over your right shoulder.
3) Which way does the line point now? It's pointing over your right shoulder, so it points UP and to the right. That's right, your HORIZONTAL line points UP.
4) Now get closer. Now get farther. How does distance affect the angle of the line? Not at all. Distance is not a factor. The line points over your right shoulder because you've aligned your view that way.

In the video with the prairie dog, it isn't the distance causing that effect, it is the angle.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 02:12:08 AM by ICanScienceThat »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #307 on: August 05, 2018, 02:01:16 AM »
... Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?

A picture you posted:


Moon to the Southeast: 239,000 miles away.
Sun to the West, over 120° in another direction, 93,000,000 miles away ...390x further.

Close up. Far away. Doesn't matter. Scale that.

Make the moon the size of a dime. (Borrow the one hiding the elephant.)
It's distance from an observer on earth at that scale is 1.14m (3'9")
The distance to the sun at that scale is 442.3m (or a 1/4 of a mile)


The big numbers don't change the relationships. You can use small numbers too. That's what scale models do.

Looking at something 3-4 feet away, and then turning 90° or so and looking at somethig a quarter mile away, and you want to tell us perspective isn't involved?

Now, if you take away any depth perception cues, with the sun at an angular size nearly identical to the moon, your brain (my brain, all our brains) want to imagine a line straight across the sky from that westerly view to the southerly or south-easterly view. But that's wrong. That's the illusion, because you aren't taking depth into account. It's not intuitive to do so. You have to remember that there's a vast difference between the earth-moon distnce and the earth-sun difference.


But that's not the whole story. Throw in different azimuth perspectives and you've got an optical illusion. You are taking in a panoramic image when you look in one direction, note the location of the sun and the turn 90° or more and note the location of the moon. If you take a picture of that, you're projecting such a bowed perspective onto a flat surface. That's what this picture is that you found to kick this off:



If you want to rectify that so it appears as a straight line in 2D , then the straight line of the earth horizon will bow. Something has to become distorted to make that moon/sun path a "straight" line on a picture.

Truth is, it IS a straight line already. It's just that you're brain fools you into thinking it's not. Why? Because you don't perceive the affects of perspective. You don't perceive that the sun is such a grand factor further away than the moon, along a different line of bearing.

I posted this earlier and you either ignored it or didn't understand it.

Here are two 2D projections of the moon-sun in an arrangement that produces the illusion that you say 'round earth theory' has no explanation for.



Both of these are correct. The bottom one is presented with the horizon as a straight line on the 2D projection. But that makes the straight line of the sun to moon look like an arc. It's straight in 3D real life, but in the 2D image (or in our brain when looking at a sky without depth cues), it makes an arc. If we rectify that to make the sun-moon line straight, the way you want to think it should be, the horizon bows into an arc. It IS possible to rectify both to be straight, but something's got to give. You could distort the sky where there is no detail and be happy, but if any straight-line thing were to be projected into that space, IT would appear distorted.

Like it or not, it's an illusion. And it's explicable. Much better, in fact, than the "perspective" explanation you had for how that illusion could be explained in a flat earth model with sun and moon at locations and distance NOT 390x different from each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8036
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #308 on: August 05, 2018, 02:38:28 AM »
Tom, your dishonesty continues to astound me. You continue to post as if what you were saying meant anything when it's nothing more than gibberish. You simultaneously ignore each of my key points.

Here are your key points:

- You found some math which does not use the geometry of the Earth and Moon model, and then present it as a Round Earth model. We can put any values for the distance of the sun (and likely the moon -- the math in the original paper has no distances specified) and get the same result. You are not even denying this. We can put in the distance values for the Flat Earth or Concave Earth and get the same result.

What does this tell us?

- You keep insisting on some "ball experiment" which is clearly using close range perspective to get the ball to point away from the sun.

"Yup, that's what's happening to the moon in the sky. Proof!" <-- Deceptive argument

Show that this would happen in the Round Earth model specifically.

Quote
How about you tell us, "why does the light on the moon match the light on the ball?"

Probably because the earth is flat.

Look at all of the arguments that have been posted here. The "hallway example," the "close range ball experiment" example. An example where the sun and moon are projected onto a plane a short distance from the observer...

All of these are Flat Earth Explanations.

Only in a Flat Earth model do the bodies change distance radically from you. Only the Flat Earth model has the celestial bodies projected onto the atmoplane above the observer.

So, thank you for contributing to the Flat Earth research.

None of the examples and descriptions given are of a Round Earth model. If you try to use what the Round Earth model says is happening, it doesn't work.
"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

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #309 on: August 05, 2018, 03:50:42 AM »
I have only 1 point. I will break it down (again):
a) If you hold up a ball in the sunlight, you can easily see the angle the sun hits the ball.
b) The moon is a sphere, and it is lit by the same sun that is hitting the ball.
c) The moon is far away compared to the ball, but the sun is so much farther away, the lighting will match almost perfectly.
d) People have trouble understanding the geometry of the sun's light on the moon when the 2 are far apart in the sky, but the ball makes it pretty obvious.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #310 on: August 05, 2018, 04:09:31 AM »
Example:

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7238
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #311 on: August 05, 2018, 04:50:39 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
You found some math which does not use the geometry of the Earth and Moon model, and then present it as a Round Earth model.

This is gibberish. There is no math of the RE model.  There is geometry, and it can be used to describe the relationships of the sun, moon and earth with exquisite detail.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #312 on: August 05, 2018, 06:26:18 AM »
Bill, the "Ball Experiment" is a close range perspective effect. There is no way to get the ball to not point at the sun without taking advantage of close range perspective effects.

Nobody is suggesting the ball experiment should get the ball to point away from the sun except you. Nobody suggests that should form part of the experiment except you. As I said earlier, if you're trying to do this, you're doing the experiment wrong.


Take a look at this animation:

Why are you citing animations? Why aren't you taking a tennis, base or billiard ball outside and doing this for yourself, rather than trying to propose your variation on it?

The only way to get it to point upwards and away from the sun is to take advantage of close range perspective effects. This is what I am being asked to do.

No, it will not point away from the sun. The centre of the illuminated portion of the ball will always point toward the sun. You cannot change that.

If you think you can get it to look as though it is pointing away from the Sun, do the experiment yourself and show us your result. If the result has you looking at the ball without the moon also visible immediately behind the ball, you're doing the experiment wrong. That is not the methodology of the experiment.


Why am I being asked to do that? It shows nothing about what is occurring to the moon or anything about the nature of the occurrence.

Yes, it does.

It will need to be shown that perspective effects can affect the geometry of the Round Earth model. Unlike drastic differences in distance ratios at close range; when something is far away from you, it is harder for those close range perspective effects to occur. You would need to travel significant distances to make that happen, in ratio with the new distances.

Yes, you can move around your ball, but you can't move around the Moon to the same degree. Got it. That's the whole point of the methodology described. To align your sight line with the ball along the same sight line that connects you and the moon. If you move around, you're not looking at the ball along this sight line

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


Under the Round Earth Theory both the sun and moon are far away and are at equal distance from you at all times. They do not change distances radically from you, as the camera changes in relation to the ball in the above animation as compared to the distance to the ball.

That's not the methodology for this experiment. The camera should not change in relation to the ball. See my italics above.

It should be shown that the geometry of the Round Earth model can create such perspective effects.

Why? There's no perspective involved, IF you do the experiment the right way
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #313 on: August 05, 2018, 06:39:18 AM »
You keep insisting on some "ball experiment" which is clearly using close range perspective to get the ball to point away from the sun.

No. No. No. 

No.

NOBODY is suggesting this except you. Everybody else is telling you to do the ball experiment BECAUSE the illuminated portion of the ball points AT the Sun. That it matches the illuminated portion of the Moon, but only IF you do the experiment properly, and look at both along the same sight line.

You keep trying to do something else with the experiment, but if you did that, you would be doing the experiment wrong.



"Yup, that's what's happening to the moon in the sky. Proof!" <-- Deceptive argument

If you see the illuminated portion of the ball and the moon match exactly, how can you conclude that what's illuminating the moon is any different from what's illuminating the ball?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #314 on: August 05, 2018, 06:49:32 AM »
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.

So ... where did you find it? I can see the picture link, but where's the commentary to go with it?

There's a number of occurrences, but which one are you referring to in particular?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #315 on: August 05, 2018, 02:29:23 PM »
From the paper we were talking about: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf



Tom, you have already shown that you could not possibly understand the math in that paper, so I have no idea why your trying to quote stuff from it.  What is shown in this diagram and the other diagrams in that paper are only possible with the accepted RE model of the solar system.  This topic is about whether or not the full moon was possible on a flat earth, and you have, yet again, dragged if off course though a series of straw man positions.   By inspection of the current flat earth model you can easily see that a full moon is not possible on one of those flat earths.

Please explain to us how you can have a full moon on a flat earth.  You will need to explain what keeps the moon in it's motion.  For bonus points, further explain the diagram of moon phases you posted would work on a flat earth.

Quote
Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #316 on: August 05, 2018, 02:34:25 PM »
The problem, however, is that in the moon tilt "illusion" the moon doesn't point at the sun.

lol how would you know?  you've never tried to find out empirically if it does or not.  you just keep looking at images and guessing at how you think things ought to look.  nice rationalizations.  i mean ffs you have your own private thread dedicated to what a brilliant empiricist you are; why not at least pretend to actually be an empiricist?

for the record again, the moon absolutely does "point" at the sun.  take a piece of string and hold it taut.  align it to be perpendicular to the moon's terminator.  follow the line to where it points.  it always points at the sun.  100% of the time.

this entire thread is based on a falsehood.  arguing about perspective is pointless.  just make your own straight line and hold it up to the moon.  i say it points at the sun; you say it doesn't.  why not do the experiment to find out for yourself?  what do you have to lose?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #317 on: August 06, 2018, 11:17:54 PM »

Take a look at this animation:

https://media.giphy.com/media/QLNnW3c2d2iGEPIICh/giphy.gif
I would also like to point out that you are intentionally trying to  deceive people with that animation.  Those camera movements are not necessary.  It could have been seen had the camera simply been lowered and panned up and to the left.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8036
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #318 on: August 07, 2018, 07:50:49 PM »
Quote
Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)

The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.

How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 01:47:41 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

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 824
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #319 on: August 08, 2018, 05:40:45 PM »
Quote
Assuming that this is true, how does this make sense with the Round Earth model where significant perspective effects and changes cannot occur?
It's all explained in that document you took the diagram from. ::)

The authors use a mathematical model that doesn't care about the distance of the sun or of the moon. ICanScienceThat has said that multiple times. Why aren't you listening? We can put in 3000 miles and we get the same result.

How does that qualify as a Round Earth model of the phenomenon?

We have went over this many many times. Trigonometry is a math largely based on ratios. If the ratio is the same then the distances don't matter. In terms of the degree of the angles, SIN, COS, and TAN.

A right triangle with opposite sides length of one inch and an adjacent side of 3 inches will have the same angles as a right triangle with an opposite side of 1 billion miles and an adjacent side of 3 billion miles.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 05:42:54 PM by iamcpc »