*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2018, 11:44:48 PM »
Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

JRowe replies 'N'

Why?

If you suspend a sports ball with a small logo from your ceiling, and align it so that from one side of the room it is facing toward you, then without moving the ball, go to the other side of the room, can you still see the logo, or are you looking at the other side of the ball?
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?

So, again, you're not going to answer the question in the earlier part of my post, but just respond to the last line?

You replied N to Q3. I asked why. Can you answer? Will you answer?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2018, 11:48:53 PM »
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?

Already discussed, from reply #2 onward.

We've already been through "If we put A on the ceiling, and walk, what do we see?", and discussed what is expected.

I now ask "If you put B on the ceiling, what would you see?", and you say

"What if it's not B on the ceiling, but A?"

Why? Why are you trying to avoid the question?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 376
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2018, 11:54:44 PM »
Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

JRowe replies 'N'

Why?

If you suspend a sports ball with a small logo from your ceiling, and align it so that from one side of the room it is facing toward you, then without moving the ball, go to the other side of the room, can you still see the logo, or are you looking at the other side of the ball?
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?

So, again, you're not going to answer the question in the earlier part of my post, but just respond to the last line?

You replied N to Q3. I asked why. Can you answer? Will you answer?
Reply to what?! The:

Quote
JRowe replies 'N'

Why?
You want the answer to that? Easy. It isn't a sports ball, it's a penny. Why would I give a damn what happens when there's a sports ball? Next up, what happens when the moon is precisely the shape of a keyboard-playing cat.

Try thinking about the answers you get rather than defaulting to "An FEer said it, it must be wrong and I must poke every hole I can in it!" It's really a tiresome habit of REers.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2018, 03:17:25 AM »
You want the answer to that? Easy. It isn't a sports ball, it's a penny. Why would I give a damn what happens when there's a sports ball? Next up, what happens when the moon is precisely the shape of a keyboard-playing cat.

Try thinking about the answers you get rather than defaulting to "An FEer said it, it must be wrong and I must poke every hole I can in it!" It's really a tiresome habit of REers.
\

The problem, JRowe, is that the OP is focused on and questioning TFES.org's wiki, which DOES say the moon is a sphere, as in a "sports ball" and not a "penny."

If you're going to contest what the opening post is deriving what a FE view of the moon is, then you kind of need to do so within the context of the FE view being challenged. You're imparting your own FE version of the moon on the opening post, and that's confusing.


*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2018, 07:56:16 AM »
Reply to what?! The:

Quote
JRowe replies 'N'. Why?
You want the answer to that? Easy. It isn't a sports ball, it's a penny.

Prove it. Provide some evidence that the Moon in the sky, which has been landed upon and orbited since 1959, is not a globe. All the people who have been around it and on it, all the unmanned craft which have been around it and on it, all the data returned by both, all confirm it to be a globe, as does every astronomer who has ever observed it. The mapping of the far side confirms it so.

Why would I give a damn what happens when there's a sports ball?

Why would anyone give a damn for your penny, when all the actual evidence says that the Moon is more of a sports ball than a penny?

Why would anyone give a damn for a discussion of the Moon based on the assumption it's a penny, when the evidence clearly makes that discussion moot?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2018, 05:02:19 PM »
Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

JRowe replies 'N'

Why?

If you suspend a sports ball with a small logo from your ceiling, and align it so that from one side of the room it is facing toward you, then without moving the ball, go to the other side of the room, can you still see the logo, or are you looking at the other side of the ball?
And when it's not a sports ball, but a penny?

This thread pertains to it's orientation.  The orientation question has the same answer wether it's a penny or a ball.  On the other side of the room will you see it's orientation upside down?

The prediction for both RET and FET is the same: you will see it oriented upside down on the other side of the room.

I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2018, 08:16:00 PM »
I keep struggling to parse the logic of this situation so unbelievably simply that everyone can get it. I simply cannot understand why the essential point of what I am pointing out keeps getting missed.

One more attempt......

If the green arrow in the wiki was to be replaced by a model that more accurately represented the moon e.g. a small globe with 'x' on one side and 'y' on the other and 'Z' on the bottom, and you were to move from 50 ft south to 50 ft North, looking all the time at the globe as you went.

1) As in the green arrow example you would pass underneath and then to the other side of the globe? Y/N

2) No matter what angle or manner you observed the globe (upside down / over your shoulder) you would see a X a Z and then a Y? Y/N

3) This is incompatible with the wiki which predicts you would see the same face at all times? Y/N

4) So, travelling to the OTHER SIDE can cause rotating perspective effects but since this necessitates seeing different faces of a spherical object and we do not see this with the moon, it cannot be the explanation for the rotation we DO see when viewing the moon? Y/N

Phew, this is getting really tedious. Please answer the questions in turn flat Earthers and if you state No for any you must explain how this can be possible in the context of the examples given.

Note, we can see now that the arrow example is invalid as an example as it limits the discussion to 2 dimensions when the real situation demands we consider 3, as in for things that can have x,y,z components or 'backs, fronts and sides'. Such limited examples, as are frequently employed by FE theory, are useful if you are trying to seed doubt among people with a limited grasp of spatial logic but totally invalid as soon as an accurate analysis is applied.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 08:19:46 PM by lookatmooninUKthenAUS »

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2018, 10:18:24 PM »
I keep struggling to parse the logic of this situation so unbelievably simply that everyone can get it. I simply cannot understand why the essential point of what I am pointing out keeps getting missed.

One more attempt......

If the green arrow in the wiki was to be replaced by a model that more accurately represented the moon e.g. a small globe with 'x' on one side and 'y' on the other and 'Z' on the bottom, and you were to move from 50 ft south to 50 ft North, looking all the time at the globe as you went.

1) As in the green arrow example you would pass underneath and then to the other side of the globe? Y/N

2) No matter what angle or manner you observed the globe (upside down / over your shoulder) you would see a X a Z and then a Y? Y/N

3) This is incompatible with the wiki which predicts you would see the same face at all times? Y/N

4) So, travelling to the OTHER SIDE can cause rotating perspective effects but since this necessitates seeing different faces of a spherical object and we do not see this with the moon, it cannot be the explanation for the rotation we DO see when viewing the moon? Y/N

Phew, this is getting really tedious. Please answer the questions in turn flat Earthers and if you state No for any you must explain how this can be possible in the context of the examples given.

Note, we can see now that the arrow example is invalid as an example as it limits the discussion to 2 dimensions when the real situation demands we consider 3, as in for things that can have x,y,z components or 'backs, fronts and sides'. Such limited examples, as are frequently employed by FE theory, are useful if you are trying to seed doubt among people with a limited grasp of spatial logic but totally invalid as soon as an accurate analysis is applied.

I think I'm getting it now.  It's not just the orientation you are talking about, it's the visible part of the moon.  Yes, I see the issue.  I'll put on my FE hat and give my answers.


1) Y
2) Y
3) Y with a caveat below
4) N


Caveat for #3: The model where there is a small globe on the ceiling places the viewed globe close to the observer.  As the globe moves farther away from the observer there will be less changes to the visible portion of the face.  I believe the technical term for this is "libration" from the Libration wiki.  The distance between the viewer and the globe is important.  If the globe is very far away and the distance you travel is relatively small, you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

Reason for N for #4.  As you walk from one side to the other of the room and pass under the ball/moon you will be looking directly up.  As you continue to walk, is will be difficult to continue to see the ball/moon without turning around.  When you turn around the orientation of the ball/moon will be rotated.


Predictions for a round earth:
Assume the moon is over the equator.  Viewer 1 is in the northern hemisphere at 45 degrees north.  Viewer 2 is in the southern hemisphere at 45 degrees south.  The viewers will see the orientation of the moon to be opposite from each other.  They will also see slightly different portions of the face of the moon.  As the RE model has concrete numbers for the size and distance of the moon these numbers are calculable.  To the best of my knowledge, these calculations match observations.

Predictions for a flat earth:
Assume the moon is over the equator.  Viewer 1 is in the northern hemiplane at 45 degrees north.  Viewer 2 is in the southern hemiplane at 45 degrees south.  The viewers will see the orientation of the moon to be opposite from each other.  They will also see slightly different portions of the face of the moon.  The exact different amount depending on the size of the moon and how high it is.  As there are not well agreed upon moon size and distances these are difficult to calculate.


In either model the orientation of the moon is opposite for observers in northern versus southern vantage points.
I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2018, 10:41:34 AM »
Quote
you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

No, you would not, and this is entirely my point. You can't and never do see the back (dark) side of the moon. Explain to me how it is possible to see the back side of ANY object simply by virtue of your distance from it. Light travels in straight lines and reflects only off the surface presented to the sun and Earth.

If it is possible to see the underside and backside of an object by viewing at different distances this must be a regular phenomenon in nature. Please can you cite a single example where this occurs.

Quote
Reason for N for #4.  As you walk from one side to the other of the room and pass under the ball/moon you will be looking directly up.  As you continue to walk, is will be difficult to continue to see the ball/moon without turning around.  When you turn around the orientation of the ball/moon will be rotated.

There is no disagreement concerning how the rotation can occur. But you have failed yet again to explain how, for instance, as we 'pass under the ball/moon' we see its underside in the model BUT NOT WHEN VIEWING THE MOON. The answer to Q4 must therefor be 'yes'.

I am afraid I am not even going to look at the 'libration' wiki. It is not significant or relevant to the discussion we are having. This is absolutely classic FE tactics. We have a rock solid simple explanation for why the moon can rotate 180 degrees in our field of vision while FE must introduce red herrings and use logical contortions predicated on pure misunderstandings of simple optics and 3D space.

This is the end game. Nobody can adequately explain the rotation of the Earth using FE theory. It is utter, utter nonsense and without being able to explain this very simple observation THE ENTIRE THEORY FALLS DOWN. Do not pass go, do not collect £200, go directly back to the drawing board and start again.


*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2018, 12:01:12 PM »
Let's proceed from the assumption that the Moon is a globe. Numerous spacecraft have been documented to orbit it, men have
been documented to land on it, we have photos of the far side. So let's take that as a starting point.

This is a spherical wedge;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_wedge

Divide the globe up into four 90-degree wedges, and divide each at
the 'equator' to make four 'northern' wedge halves, and four 'southern'. With me so far?

At the surface, name the points where the arc of each wedge begins and ends.

I suggest the four points around the 'equator' be named 0, 90, 180, and 270 (running counter-clockwise when viewed from above), with the 'pole' points named 90N and 90S; this retains some commonality with textbook latitude and longitude indicators.

Now, if you hang this globe from the ceiling, with 0 toward you at your starting point, 90N to the top, and you remain upright, you see;



(whether you can see 90N or not will depend on how far below it you are)


If you are directly under this globe, you see;



(The arrow indicates the direction you are moving in)



And once you have moved to the other side (and you have turned round to face back toward it), you see




Yes? No?

Points to note;
At your starting point, you cannot see 180.  Y/N?
At your midpoint, you cannot see 90N         Y/N?
At your finish point, you cannot see 0       Y/N?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 12:03:52 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2018, 04:29:20 PM »
I keep struggling to parse the logic of this situation so unbelievably simply that everyone can get it. I simply cannot understand why the essential point of what I am pointing out keeps getting missed.

One more attempt......

If the green arrow in the wiki was to be replaced by a model that more accurately represented the moon e.g. a small globe with 'x' on one side and 'y' on the other and 'Z' on the bottom, and you were to move from 50 ft south to 50 ft North, looking all the time at the globe as you went.
How big is the moon globe?
How far away is the 100' perpendicular line from which I'd be viewing the moon globe from its ends?

To scale, if you're going to move +/- 50 ft perpendicularly to the small globe, then that globe would have to be 30' in diameter 3277' away to approximate viewing the moon from the extremes of earth. (Globe earth, that is.)

If you're using a 1 foot diameter small globe to simulate the moon, then place it 110 feet away and only move laterally about about 3.5' (+/- 1' 4"). That's how much of the "other side" of the moon you could see by reorienting yourself on the earth. If my math is right, that means if you were to look at the moon when it's at its zenith on your longitude from the furthest points north and south, you only see "around" the moon about an extra 35 miles of its circumference. This is approximate. Where the moon is in its eccentric orbit and where it is in its wobble will add or subtract to the angle, but my point is that the scale won't allow us to see much beyond the moon horizon we see straight on. We'd have to leave earth to see an X and Y painted on its "sides".

But how we move about on the earth and orient ourselves to  look at the moon, whether it's low on the horizon or directly overhead, that imaginary Z on the side facing us will always be facing us but appear to change orientation. The "flipping" will be due to how we orient ourselves to see the moon with respect to the nearest horizon, which will be different if we're south or north of the moon's declination. It "flips" because of how we would turn ourselves to orient the moon to the horizon.

But that Z will also do other things than just "flip" for that reason. It also tilts as the moon transits from moonrise to moonset. This "rolling" is due to something else, and it ought to be able to help us distinguish whether we're viewing it from a flat surface or a convex surface because that "rolling" will behave different depending on the kind of surface we are on and the mechanics of whether we're on a spinning globe with an orbiting moon, or a stationary flat plane with a sphere moon circling above it. They will not manifest the "rolling" orientation the same way.

But that's a different subject, distinct from this "flipping" orientation phenomenon; and it's one currently engaged in a topic that got moved to the Lounge. Back to the point here is that to model how we see the moon's orientation it has to be scaled correctly.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 04:32:22 PM by Bobby Shafto »

alfred1

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2018, 07:24:19 AM »
I would have said that the ball is the same way up where ever you stand. It is you that has moved, not the ball. If the moon in southern hemisphere appears to the opposite way up the moon in the northern hemisphere then What way up does it appear to be on the equator? ???

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2018, 07:39:09 AM »
I would have said that the ball is the same way up where ever you stand. It is you that has moved, not the ball. If the moon in southern hemisphere appears to the opposite way up the moon in the northern hemisphere then What way up does it appear to be on the equator? ???

Sideways. Although the extent will vary with the seasons, due to axial tilt.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

alfred1

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2018, 07:41:59 AM »
I would have said that the ball is the same way up where ever you stand. It is you that has moved, not the ball. If the moon in southern hemisphere appears to the opposite way up the moon in the northern hemisphere then What way up does it appear to be on the equator? ???

Sideways. Although the extent will vary with the seasons, due to axial tilt.
Thank you. That at least makes sense.

Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2018, 09:03:48 PM »
Quote
you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

The beginning of my sentence is critical for context:
Quote
If the globe is very far away and the distance you travel is relatively small, you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

No, you would not, and this is entirely my point. You can't and never do see the back (dark) side of the moon. Explain to me how it is possible to see the back side of ANY object simply by virtue of your distance from it. Light travels in straight lines and reflects only off the surface presented to the sun and Earth.

If it is possible to see the underside and backside of an object by viewing at different distances this must be a regular phenomenon in nature. Please can you cite a single example where this occurs.


True, I'm not considering the back side of the moon.   My image below will illustrate.


Quote
Reason for N for #4.  As you walk from one side to the other of the room and pass under the ball/moon you will be looking directly up.  As you continue to walk, is will be difficult to continue to see the ball/moon without turning around.  When you turn around the orientation of the ball/moon will be rotated.

There is no disagreement concerning how the rotation can occur. But you have failed yet again to explain how, for instance, as we 'pass under the ball/moon' we see its underside in the model BUT NOT WHEN VIEWING THE MOON. The answer to Q4 must therefor be 'yes'.

I am afraid I am not even going to look at the 'libration' wiki. It is not significant or relevant to the discussion we are having. This is absolutely classic FE tactics. We have a rock solid simple explanation for why the moon can rotate 180 degrees in our field of vision while FE must introduce red herrings and use logical contortions predicated on pure misunderstandings of simple optics and 3D space.

The libration part is not important to this discussion much.  Just trying to use correct terminology.

I have 2 images.  One with a close moon, one with a far moon.  Neither to scale.



I've placed X, Y and Z (in Comic Sans) on the moon, note that I placed X and Z slightly lower than the mid point.  Also, we have two mohawked observers, A and B (also with Comic Sans).

In the not-to-scale low moon example, Observer A can see Z and Y, observer B can see X and Y.  Observer A can also see a significant amount of the side of the moon above Z.  Observer B can also see a significant amount of the side of the moon above X.

In the not-to-scale high moon example, both observers can see X, Y and Z if the moon is high enough.  Neither can see significant amounts above X or Z.

The low moon image is similar to the FE model where the model predicts seeing significantly different portions of the moon for observers A and B at the same time.
The high moon image is similar to the RE model where the model predicts seeing nearly identical portions of the moon for observers A and B at the same time.

This is the end game. Nobody can adequately explain the rotation of the Earth using FE theory. It is utter, utter nonsense and without being able to explain this very simple observation THE ENTIRE THEORY FALLS DOWN. Do not pass go, do not collect £200, go directly back to the drawing board and start again.

I'm with you, I have not seen any FE explanation that accurately and consistently predicts observations.

Where I come from, we would collect $200, but I prefer collecting £200 due to the favourable exchange rate.
I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect