*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 274
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Angular size of the Moon
« on: October 12, 2020, 11:06:29 AM »
The angular size (apparent diameter) of the Moon varies with time. Its variation is somewhat faster than the phases cycles: sometimes the largest apparent Moon will coincide with a full moon, causing the so-called "Supermoon"



The difference between a small (apogee) Moon and a big (perigee) Moon is about 13%. Examples are easily found:







Pictures typically depict a full moon because that's more spectacular and makes it easier to compare, but they could be made with any visible phase.

This kind of photos is quite easy to make, photographing the Sun is tricky and even dangerous if done wrong, but for the Moon you only need a decent DSLR and long-focus lens to get this kind of pictures.

Two things to note:
* When the Moon appears bigger, it appears bigger for everyone, wherever they are on Earth
* The angular size of the Moon doesn't vary significantly as it moves through the sky

Now, from the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon) :
Quote
The Moon is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Using these values, for a Moon that's directly overhead, we calculate an angular size of about 0.611 degress or 36.6 arcminutes (https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php ). That's slightly above the observed largest Moon but in the right ballpark.

But for a Moon that's above a point 5000 miles away, the distance from the observer is sqrt(3000^2+5000^2) (Pythagorus) = 5830 miles. That gives us an angular diameter of 0.314 degrees or 18.8 arcminutes. Half as small. Such a variation has never been observed anywhere, not even at different times, and certainly not from two places at the same time

On a flat Earth with a close Moon:
* What causes the variation of the apparent size of the Moon for every observer on Earth over a cycle of about 27 days, slightly shorter than the cycles of lunar phases?
* What causes the Moon to have an apparent size that's not significantly different whether it's 3000 or 6000 miles away (without ever distorting its shape)?
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2020, 04:18:28 PM »
Quote
What causes the variation of the apparent size of the Moon for every observer on Earth over a cycle of about 27 days, slightly shorter than the cycles of lunar phases?

If the moon is a physical/tangible object, I bet it's distance.

Quote
What causes the Moon to have an apparent size that's not significantly different whether it's 3000 or 6000 miles away (without ever distorting its shape)?

Likely the distance to the moon is quite large, even if it is vastly less than the made up presumptive number.  It is possibly too far away for the minor distance variance to warp the moon discernably.

Personally I am not convinced that the moon is tangible/physical at all (not exactly anyhow), and if this is the case then optical relationships established on very small scales, with small physical objects, and limited/negligible optical air interaction effects may have no applicability to the moon and other lights in the sky.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2020, 05:15:01 PM »
Quote
What causes the variation of the apparent size of the Moon for every observer on Earth over a cycle of about 27 days, slightly shorter than the cycles of lunar phases?

If the moon is a physical/tangible object, I bet it's distance.

Quote
What causes the Moon to have an apparent size that's not significantly different whether it's 3000 or 6000 miles away (without ever distorting its shape)?

Likely the distance to the moon is quite large, even if it is vastly less than the made up presumptive number.  It is possibly too far away for the minor distance variance to warp the moon discernably.

Personally I am not convinced that the moon is tangible/physical at all (not exactly anyhow), and if this is the case then optical relationships established on very small scales, with small physical objects, and limited/negligible optical air interaction effects may have no applicability to the moon and other lights in the sky.

If the Moon is not tangible, or the Moon is much closer than science has established, how do you explain radio bouncing off of it and the distance measurements that are now done with hobby level equipment?

What do you mean by not tangible?  Not solid like a gas?  Or not physical at all?  What is it made of?

*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 274
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2020, 05:16:44 PM »
Could you explain what a "non-physical" Moon could be? If it's not physical, how does it block the light of the Sun during an eclipse? If it's not the Moon that causes solar eclipses, then what is it and why does it always occur during a new moon?

What's your idea of "very small scales"? When would optics as we know it stop to work, and why?
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2020, 02:24:57 AM »
@JSS

Quote
If the Moon is not tangible, or the Moon is much closer than science has established, how do you explain radio bouncing off of it and the distance measurements that are now done with hobby level equipment?

Good question.

If tom is correct on this, then I don't have to - it's just more fraud.

If tom is incorrect I have a few speculative ideas :

1.  The moon is intangible, the returns come from the roof/dome which is often taught to us erroneously as "the ionosphere".
2.  The moon is "partially" tangible, but very light.  It is more of an ionization effect / hologram (of ionization effects), perhaps a plasma. Electromagnetic return (very weak, and requiring large broadcast power and focus) could still be potentially possible in this case.
3.  The moon is physical/tangible, and we still have the distance wrong because parallax doesn't work for it and the electromagnetic returns are traveling through unknown media(s) (and or hitting something else that is not the moon - dome etc.)

Quote
What do you mean by not tangible?  Not solid like a gas?  Or not physical at all?  What is it made of?

There was a professor in australia in the 60's who was convinced that he had proof the moon was made of plasma, and that the americans and russians would need to admit that they couldn't get to the moon.  His existence and records seem to be missing and/or scrubbed.  The footage we have of him could also be fake, but it appears genuine and comes from a "public" source.  I think this is conceivable.

The moon may be an ionization effect / hologram of the rarefied air in the extreme altitudes.  It is also conceivable that the moon is entirely intangible, and only made of light - more of a reflection - perhaps on the inside of a concave inner dome wall. Total speculation, and yet - there may be ways to test these ideas.

@GreatATuin

Quote
Could you explain what a "non-physical" Moon could be?

See speculative answers above.

Quote
What's your idea of "very small scales"?

In this context, human scales - i.e. NOT astronomical.
 
Quote
When would optics as we know it stop to work, and why?

Generally, light seems to vary considerably with the media it is a pressure wave within.  We don't know for certain what optical effects those media(s) cause to the light waves traveling through them.  Things that work hunky dory on human scales through mostly uniform media over short distances (even for humans) may not work at all over astronomical ones.  For instance, the sun may appear to you on the ground as being over your head when in fact its actual location is very different than what it appears (due to the media through which the light travels).

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2020, 02:44:25 AM »
@JSS

Quote
If the Moon is not tangible, or the Moon is much closer than science has established, how do you explain radio bouncing off of it and the distance measurements that are now done with hobby level equipment?

Good question.

If tom is correct on this, then I don't have to - it's just more fraud.

If tom is incorrect I have a few speculative ideas :

1.  The moon is intangible, the returns come from the roof/dome which is often taught to us erroneously as "the ionosphere".
2.  The moon is "partially" tangible, but very light.  It is more of an ionization effect / hologram (of ionization effects), perhaps a plasma. Electromagnetic return (very weak, and requiring large broadcast power and focus) could still be potentially possible in this case.
3.  The moon is physical/tangible, and we still have the distance wrong because parallax doesn't work for it and the electromagnetic returns are traveling through unknown media(s) (and or hitting something else that is not the moon - dome etc.)

Quote
What do you mean by not tangible?  Not solid like a gas?  Or not physical at all?  What is it made of?

There was a professor in australia in the 60's who was convinced that he had proof the moon was made of plasma, and that the americans and russians would need to admit that they couldn't get to the moon.  His existence and records seem to be missing and/or scrubbed.  The footage we have of him could also be fake, but it appears genuine and comes from a "public" source.  I think this is conceivable.

The moon may be an ionization effect / hologram of the rarefied air in the extreme altitudes.  It is also conceivable that the moon is entirely intangible, and only made of light - more of a reflection - perhaps on the inside of a concave inner dome wall. Total speculation, and yet - there may be ways to test these ideas.

Tom is incorrect, the Moon bounce effect is very real and is done by large numbers of HAM operators every day to communicate.  If the 'dome' was bouncing it back, then why don't signals return when antennas are not pointed at the Moon?  Radar would show a solid object up there if there was a dome.

I will tell you the same thing I told Tom, contact a local HAM group and see if they can demo a Moon bounce measurement for you.  Then you can put your theories to the test and see for yourself that we do indeed get the results that are claimed.

You have a lot of theories, but zero evidence for any of them.  On the other hand, the Moon bounce can be demonstrated with common HAM radio gear, operated by normal people all around the world and anyone can do it if they want to invest some time and money.  You can do parallax measurements.  You can do angular size measurements.  Laser bounce measurements.  Not the sort of thing a conspiracy could cover up with so many regular people able to do these. They can't ALL be frauds like you imagine.

There are many ways to measure the distance to the Moon, and they all agree.  There is no way you can account for all the methods and have your intangible Moon.  Slowing the speed of light down, making it curve this way or that way, adding a dome... all of these might solve one solution but won't work for others.  Not to mention the Moon landings.

It just does not seem plausible that everything we know is ALL lies, and the truth is... completely unknown. Nobody has any idea what the Moon is made of, where it us, how light behaves, how it moves, where it goes, how it interacts with the Sun.  If there was a coherent alternate theory that explained all of that, then I'd take it seriously.

You say there may be some way to test these ideas. Until you know how to do that, it's all just speculation.

Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2020, 03:41:43 AM »
@JSS

Quote
Until you know how to do that, it's all just speculation.

This is true.  My point was that they are likely not untestable, and so should be tested.

However, there is much speculation masquerading as "fact" in your head seemingly supporting the "massive moon" theory.

Some of that speculation disingenuously/erroneously presented as "fact" is clearly false.  The moon does not control the tides, for just one instance.

Quote
You can do parallax measurements.

Yes, but your answers will be wrong.  Parallax doesn't work with the sun or moon - it most likely doesn't work with any of the lights in the sky.  Have you done this? Do you know anyone who has?

Quote
Not to mention the Moon landings.

In the words of carl sagan - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No such evidence of any "moon landing" exists, or did exist at any time that we can verify/validate.

Quote
It just does not seem plausible that everything we know is ALL lies, and the truth is... completely unknown.

I completely agree. It's just everything we know about "space" and most everything in astronomy/astrophysics that is mythological garbage taught to us disingenuously/erroneously as "science" since childhood.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 03:53:27 AM by jack44556677 »

Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2020, 08:03:58 AM »
So what controls the tides, Jack?

*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 274
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2020, 08:11:41 AM »
Quote
What's your idea of "very small scales"?

In this context, human scales - i.e. NOT astronomical.
 
Quote
When would optics as we know it stop to work, and why?

Generally, light seems to vary considerably with the media it is a pressure wave within.  We don't know for certain what optical effects those media(s) cause to the light waves traveling through them.  Things that work hunky dory on human scales through mostly uniform media over short distances (even for humans) may not work at all over astronomical ones.  For instance, the sun may appear to you on the ground as being over your head when in fact its actual location is very different than what it appears (due to the media through which the light travels).

Optics as we know it works perfectly well on Earth with distances of a few hundreds km. The proposed distance of the close Moon on a flat Earth is just a few thousands km. Yet the way the Moon appears to us in the sky isn't compatible with these simple optics. My question is: is there a proposed explanation for this?
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2020, 12:12:57 PM »
@JSS

Quote
Until you know how to do that, it's all just speculation.
This is true.  My point was that they are likely not untestable, and so should be tested.

So how do we test them?

However, there is much speculation masquerading as "fact" in your head seemingly supporting the "massive moon" theory.

Some of that speculation disingenuously/erroneously presented as "fact" is clearly false.  The moon does not control the tides, for just one instance.

What is your evidence that the Moon does not control the tides?  What does control them, and what evidence supports this?

Quote
You can do parallax measurements.
Yes, but your answers will be wrong.  Parallax doesn't work with the sun or moon - it most likely doesn't work with any of the lights in the sky.  Have you done this? Do you know anyone who has?

Why doesn't parallax work with the Moon?  What is your reasoning and the evidence behind this claim?

If I performed this experiment, which I could, would you then believe it's results about the Moon's distance?

Quote
Not to mention the Moon landings.

In the words of carl sagan - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No such evidence of any "moon landing" exists, or did exist at any time that we can verify/validate.

Quote
It just does not seem plausible that everything we know is ALL lies, and the truth is... completely unknown.

I completely agree. It's just everything we know about "space" and most everything in astronomy/astrophysics that is mythological garbage taught to us disingenuously/erroneously as "science" since childhood.

Everyone that went to the moon is a liar?  How do you know this?

What proof or evidence do you have of any of these lies?  Why is just space all lies, and how can they fake JUST space observations but still remain consistent with everything else we know?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2020, 12:17:22 PM »
Quote
What's your idea of "very small scales"?


In this context, human scales - i.e. NOT astronomical.

Oh, come on, now.

Just a few posts ago, you assert that space "does not exist", and here you're talking about human vs. astronomical scales. If you accept the existence of "astronomical scales" (without which, your context falls apart), you have to accept space does exist.

Also, if the Moon does happen to be one of the illusory things that you theorise about, don't you find it a remarkable coincidence that the tides we observe on Earth tally precisely with the passage of the Moon in our sky?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 12:20:11 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 274
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: Angular size of the Moon
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2020, 01:33:21 PM »
Also, parallax does definitely work with the Moon. That's how we calculated the lunar distance before we had more advanced techniques (radar, laser), and the results were consistent.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read