Appearance of the moon face
« on: February 14, 2020, 02:34:37 AM »
Hi,

First time poster here, so go easy on me...  >o<

I have a friend who is a strident Flat Earther, and we have had many debates around this.

The one point that we are completely unable to get past is whether the moon is local. My point is that of the moon were local, then we would see different faces of it.

As an example, the moon in its orbit, passes pretty much directly over Manaus, in central Brazil. It is visible on Bogota around 2000 miles to the west, and Salvador, 2000 miles to the east of Manaus. Now if the moon is 3000 miles up, as the wiki states, then the view from the two locations should be different, but it's not. This borne out by a Google search, which shows that every single photo of the moon shoes the same hemisphere, only rotated.

He has been unable to explain this, I was going that someone here could?

Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2020, 12:39:27 PM »
If the sun and moon were local and moving above us then the angular size would change as the distance between you and it would vary greatly over the course of 24 hours. The angular speed would also vary. And yes, we wouldn't all see the same face of the moon.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2020, 10:31:38 PM »
Any FErs want to explain how moon phasing works?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7340
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2020, 10:40:54 PM »
The nearside of the Moon always seen is accounted for in the FE celestial model of Electromagnetic Acceleration:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I think it is interesting that the same model which explains the sunsets also predicts as a matter of geometry that we must always see the nearside of celestial bodies, and that is what we see of the Moon. To explain it in RE they had to bring in other external theories about tidal locking.
"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: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2020, 11:07:07 PM »
Thank you for that explanation. So if I've understood it correctly, the light from the moon cascades straight down, and then arcs as it gets close to the earth, so that at any viewpoint, we see the face of the moon that is facing straight down? I'm fairly new to this - so I hope my understanding is correct?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7340
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2020, 11:19:12 PM »
Yes that's correct. That's a good one sentence description.
"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: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2020, 02:31:28 AM »
Ok, cool. So if I'm in a well, that's let's say 10 foot deep and 3 feet across, and I have a friend who is 2000 miles away, also in a well that's 10 feet deep and 3 feet across, so that we both have a fairly wide angle view of the sky above, at any one point in time, only one of us would be able to see the moon - the one who is physically below the moon. For the other, the light rays would be at too shallow an angle, and would just pass over the mouth of the well, right?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7340
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2020, 12:06:13 AM »
 That sounds right.
"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: 819
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2020, 02:26:01 AM »
The nearside of the Moon always seen is accounted for in the FE celestial model of Electromagnetic Acceleration:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I think it is interesting that the same model which explains the sunsets also predicts as a matter of geometry that we must always see the nearside of celestial bodies, and that is what we see of the Moon. To explain it in RE they had to bring in other external theories about tidal locking.

Tom,


In the flat disk models i always really struggled with the lunar cycles. Now reading this it really is starting to make a lot more sense! If the light is behaving in the way described then it does seem possible to have the lunar cycles that we observe.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 02:27:38 AM by iamcpc »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7340
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2020, 03:35:17 AM »
The nearside of the Moon always seen is accounted for in the FE celestial model of Electromagnetic Acceleration:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I think it is interesting that the same model which explains the sunsets also predicts as a matter of geometry that we must always see the nearside of celestial bodies, and that is what we see of the Moon. To explain it in RE they had to bring in other external theories about tidal locking.

Tom,

In the flat disk models i always really struggled with the lunar cycles. Now reading this it really is starting to make a lot more sense! If the light is behaving in the way described then it does seem possible to have the lunar cycles that we observe.

Yes, it all does seem to come together with EA. In a PM I mentioned something to Sandokan related to this that you might be interested in, since you enjoy discussing the FE biblical models.

As you probably know, during the seven days of creation in Genesis one of God's first acts is to separate light from the darkness, creating the day and night, so that it is not daytime all over the Earth. Then in Job 38:24 he seems to ask Job a riddle: "Where is the way that the light is divided?" or "What way is light parted?" depending on the translation.

It seems to suggest to me that God is talking about something he did to light. Perhaps the answer is that it was bent upwards.
"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: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2020, 04:33:08 PM »
That sounds right.

Thanks. Actually, I didn't choose those distances completely at random. I actually performed this experiment with a friend that was in Cairo at the time, 2,400 miles from London. Neither of us was in a well, I was in a stairwell that had a large skylight (2mx2m) , and he was in an old tower that didn't have a roof. At the same time, in a video call, we were able to see the moon from our respective positions. Given that at for at least one us, the light waves would be travelling fairly parallel to the ground, the moon shouldn't have been visible for one of us.


Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2020, 09:15:31 PM »

Tom,

In the flat disk models i always really struggled with the lunar cycles. Now reading this it really is starting to make a lot more sense! If the light is behaving in the way described then it does seem possible to have the lunar cycles that we observe.

Yes, it all does seem to come together with EA. In a PM I mentioned something to Sandokan related to this that you might be interested in, since you enjoy discussing the FE biblical models.

As you probably know, during the seven days of creation in Genesis one of God's first acts is to separate light from the darkness, creating the day and night, so that it is not daytime all over the Earth. Then in Job 38:24 he seems to ask Job a riddle: "Where is the way that the light is divided?" or "What way is light parted?" depending on the translation.

It seems to suggest to me that God is talking about something he did to light. Perhaps the answer is that it was bent upwards.

There are only three things I really struggle with in the flat disk models.

1. The flight time/path issue where observed flight times/distances/paths don't mach predicted flight times/distances/paths on the flat disk model.
2. The sunrise/sunset positioning.  The flat disk models have varying predictions that sometimes the sunrise should further north/south than observed and sometimes the sunset should be further north/south than observed
3. There is no south pole. I believe the earth does have a fixed area known as the south pole.


It's because of these I'm more easily able to imagine the earth represented as a flat plane in the traditional map model. These models are used to document things like the sunrise/sunset, modern flight path tracking, and it has a fixed area known as the south pole. The predictions for 1 and 2 listed above exactly match what we observe as best i can tell.


The major downside is that there is so much more work and research put into the flat disk models to explain things like the lunar cycle and seasons that no one really put any effort into on the other FE models. I really wish the wiki had at least some information about a few of the other models.
         

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7340
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2020, 02:30:19 AM »
I have my doubts that the big world model and layout will be solved with this generation of FE. The Zetetic societies have been arguing over Monopole vs Bi-Polar vs Other models since at least the early 1900's. What is possible, what to trust, all valid and endless questions.

Every generation of FE seems to have contributed something towards Flat Earth Theory. Our main contribution will likely be the celestial model. With correct basics to the celestial model it might even be possible to derive the world model, independent of arguments about jet streams, routes, Antarctic travel restrictions, and such. An important milestone which unlocks the rest.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 03:02:24 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 stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1456
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2020, 03:42:00 AM »
I have my doubts that the big world model and layout will be solved with this generation of FE. The Zetetic societies have been arguing over Monopole vs Bi-Polar vs Other models since at least the early 1900's. What is possible, what to trust, all valid and endless questions.

Every generation of FE seems to have contributed something towards Flat Earth Theory. Our main contribution will likely be the celestial model. With correct basics to the celestial model it might even be possible to derive the world model, independent of arguments about jet streams, routes, Antarctic travel restrictions, and such. An important milestone which unlocks the rest.

You could probably start by contributing to the celestial model by not cherry-picking astronomer's words to suit your narrative and actually examining the greater findings. Your signature tagline is:

"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"

Taken from an article: "The Size of the Universe May Be Inaccurate" 2011
https://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Size-of-the-Universe-May-Be-Inaccurate-181163.shtml

Dr. Pauline Barmby continues:

“Measuring distances is important to understanding the properties of the things in the Universe,” she goes on to say. The expert's team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at these results.
The conclusions directly contradict the calculations made in 1924 by famed astronomer Edwin Hubble, who showed that the Milky Way is in fact one of very many galaxies, spread out in the Cosmos.
Data collected by analyzing Cepheid variables was used to determine that galaxies are currently flying apart from each other. Dark energy – as a concept – was introduced to explain this behavior.
“It doesn’t mean that everything we thought we knew is wrong, but if you want to do the best possible job, this effect needs to be considered,” the UWO researcher goes on to say, adding that an estimated 25 percent of all Cepheid stars were found to be shrinking via constant mass loss.
“If one measurement examined the stars when they were younger and the other when they were older, then the disagreement would make more sense. By taking images with an infrared telescope we can see the dust in the mass that is being lost, which allows us to measure it,” Barmby explains.
It remains to be seen how the international astronomical community will react to the findings. If they are confirmed, then we could expect to see a host of studies aimed at reassessing the size and behavior of the Universe."

The team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at your tagline, a device now millions of miles away from earth.

It would be more genuine for you to use the full breath of science to try and support your narrative rather than carefully selecting a short gasp to do so.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7340
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2020, 04:36:28 AM »
From the article:

Recent studies carried out by international teams of astronomers are reveling that the Universe may not have the size we currently attribute to it. At this point, it is difficult to say whether it's actually smaller or bigger than existing mathematical calculations show.

Sounds like they are saying that they don't really know to me. I trust Professor Barmby and this article over a comment on an internet forum who claims that it is known.

"Difficult to say" = Lack of knowledge

I fail to see where you have pointed out in the article where they do claim to know. Professor Barmby makes a fairly direct statement about their problems and the lack of confidence. Arguing that there is other knowledge elsewhere that proves it, without demonstration, is a very weak argument. Arguing that there is a quote which says that the current size might not be wrong, is also a very weak argument. Professor Barmby says directly that they don't know. Why should we trust you over direct statements from an authority on this matter?
"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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2232
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2020, 09:42:41 AM »
From the article:

Recent studies carried out by international teams of astronomers are reveling that the Universe may not have the size we currently attribute to it. At this point, it is difficult to say whether it's actually smaller or bigger than existing mathematical calculations show.

Sounds like they are saying that they don't really know to me. I trust Professor Barmby and this article over a comment on an internet forum who claims that it is known.

"Difficult to say" = Lack of knowledge

I fail to see where you have pointed out in the article where they do claim to know. Professor Barmby makes a fairly direct statement about their problems and the lack of confidence. Arguing that there is other knowledge elsewhere that proves it, without demonstration, is a very weak argument. Arguing that there is a quote which says that the current size might not be wrong, is also a very weak argument. Professor Barmby says directly that they don't know. Why should we trust you over direct statements from an authority on this matter?

No, Tom. You need to read the direct statements the other poster added as well as the ones you picked.

We know from measurements thus far the size of the universe to a degree of precision. What the quoted scientist is saying is there is a margin of error, commensurate with the measuring methods used, and their degree of precision, and that what she really wants is to refine the measures to a greater degree of precision.

Analogy;

If I say that it's exactly 250 miles from Edinburgh to London, according to the odometer on my car, but a surveyor has determined it as 249.8, does that make me wrong, or correct within reasonable bounds of error given the equipment I used?
 
=============================
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: 2232
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2020, 09:43:50 AM »
I have my doubts that the big world model and layout will be solved with this generation of FE. The Zetetic societies have been arguing over Monopole vs Bi-Polar vs Other models since at least the early 1900's. What is possible, what to trust, all valid and endless questions.

Every generation of FE seems to have contributed something towards Flat Earth Theory. Our main contribution will likely be the celestial model. With correct basics to the celestial model it might even be possible to derive the world model, independent of arguments about jet streams, routes, Antarctic travel restrictions, and such. An important milestone which unlocks the rest.

So you don't really know, is that what you're saying?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2020, 11:23:50 AM »
Professor Barmby says directly that they don't know. Why should we trust you over direct statements from an authority on this matter?

You seem to be extremely selective about who you regard as an authority and about what.
I mean, plenty of authorities will tell you that the earth is round but you dismiss all of those.
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to cherry-pick sources to support your viewpoints while disregarding sources which do not?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7340
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2020, 03:17:31 PM »
We know from measurements thus far the size of the universe to a degree of precision. What the quoted scientist is saying is there is a margin of error, commensurate with the measuring methods used, and their degree of precision, and that what she really wants is to refine the measures to a greater degree of precision.

The article isn't about a margin of error. Please quote that, rather than stating a fib.

"We know from measurements..." Like the words of a random person on an internet forum is enough qualification to tell us about the universe. Not. Kindly provide the studies which directly and indisputably proves the size of the universe independent of any assumption or axiom.

You seem to be extremely selective about who you regard as an authority and about what.
I mean, plenty of authorities will tell you that the earth is round but you dismiss all of those.
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to cherry-pick sources to support your viewpoints while disregarding sources which do not?

What makes you think that I dismissed them? The EA page agrees that they had reasoning to believe that the earth was a globe.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 10:57:31 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: Appearance of the moon face
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2020, 03:52:44 PM »
What makes you think that I dismissed them?
Your posting history.
You have a habit of using sources to back up your arguments (reasonable enough, although it depends on the credibility of the source) but then dismissing sources which don't agree with your world view. You are saying this person's opinion is credible because of his expertise. Fair enough. But you have a long history of dismissing that when it's sources which show your beliefs to be incorrect.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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