[GreatATuin]

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) :

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)?

[jack44556677]

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.

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.

[JSS]

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.

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?

[GreatATuin]

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?

[jack44556677]

@JSS

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.)

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

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

See speculative answers above.

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

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

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).

[JSS]

@JSS

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.)

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.

[jack44556677]

@JSS

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.

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?

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.

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.

[DuncanDoenitz]

So what controls the tides, Jack?

[GreatATuin]

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

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

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?

[JSS]

@JSS

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?

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?

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.

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?

[Tumeni]

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?

[GreatATuin]

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.

[RhesusVX]

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

This is the crux of it to me.  It's all well and good people presenting all kinds of images and proofs and theories, and discussing whether the Moon is tangible or not.  The Moon has to be as tangible as the Earth we live on, surely, but that's a debate in itself.

The universe is complex, but on a macro scale it obeys relatively simple laws, and those laws can be used to model things and make predictions.  Now, the accepted flat Earth model has the Sun and Moon rotating around a central point above the Earth.  You can literally make a model of this at home, with a flat disk, some coat hanger wire, a couple of ping pong balls and a small camera.  Construct said model, put the camera on the surface of the disc, and rotate the "Moon".  You will see that it changes size as it moves towards/away from you, quite measurably.  Also, the "Moon" doesn't follow an arc across the sky or intersect the horizon at any point.

Given that the observable Moon does not really vary in apparent size during a daily cycle, and that it rises above and sets below the horizon, following an arc across the sky, how is this accounted for in the flat Earth model?

Edit:  I've just headed over to the Wiki and FAQ, and I see that the Moon is accepted as being a sphere.  Excellent.  So, with that...

If the Moon is a sphere, why is it that everybody on Earth sees only one face of the Moon no matter what the time or their location?  In a flat Earth model, the Moon would appear differently to people in different locations at the same time.

[robinofloxley]

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.

Certainly does. I went through a worked example recently on that other site.

The method requires two observers a decent, known distance apart (mine were 2000km+ apart) who take simultaneous photos of the moon with identical DSLR cameras at the same (known) zoom settings. There is a requirement for there to be a nearby reference star in the frame.

I used these two photos as an example:





If you know the specs of the camera, from the sensor dimensions and the number of pixels, you can calculate the size of a single sensor pixel. From that, if you know the focal length of the lens, you can calculate the angular size of a pixel at that given lens zoom setting. That means you can convert a pixel distance on a photo to an angular distance.

Now the two images show that the relative positions of the moon and the reference star are different in the two images, even though the images were taken at exactly the same time. This difference is parallax, due to the two observers being in different locations.

With some simple editing software, overlay the two images so the moons and all the craters sit exactly on top of each other. Measure the pixel distance between the two reference star images, convert that to an angle, use some simple trigonometry using this angle and the distance between the two observers and you get an approximate value for the moon distance. Simple to do, works just fine. Doesn't require anything more complex than a digital camera.

The method is based on this real experiment: http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart and I used their images.

[RhesusVX]

The method is based on this real experiment: http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart and I used their images.

Great post mate, I've seen that experiment before, but unfortunately you'll probably get the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory thrown back as the explanation.  See, the "issue" with that experiment posits that the Earth is round and that light travels (to all intents and purposes for this experiment) in a straight line.  Just like Eratosthenes used shadows to prove that the Earth was round, the posit there was also that light travels in a straight line.  That FET says light curves upwards the further it travels, it means that Eratosthenes wasn't actually measuring the circumference of a globe, he was measuring the diameter of a flat disc.  Yes, flat Earthers believe that the Earth is some 25,000 miles in diameter, despite many different, yet repeatable scientific experiments showing that it is in fact just 7,900 miles in diameter.

Basically, the same argument will be used to dispute the effects of parallax, because that conveniently explains how two different people in different locations can apparently see different things.  The EA theory is full of holes, but it's the best they've got to explain the "day spot" on Earth and things like sunrise and sunset.  When I challenged it in a previous post all I got was "you are making a flawed assumption, or about 5 of them", yet was offered nothing to back up why his assumption wasn't equally flawed.  Interesting debates though.

[GreatATuin]

That's not really the point. The point is: can EA explain why the Moon appears exactly the same (same size, same aspect) from England and Greece, but at a slightly different relative position with respect to a fixed star?

[RhesusVX]

That's not really the point. The point is: can EA explain why the Moon appears exactly the same (same size, same aspect) from England and Greece, but at a slightly different relative position with respect to a fixed star?

On it's own, no it can't.  But those who support FET will pull you up on your posit that stars are fixed.  In FET they are not fixed, they are close and rotate in a plane above the Sun and Moon, and hence account for the slightly different relative position.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Stars

The thing is, where FET can't fully explain something and it introduces contradictions, you start to encounter nonsensical stuff like "light is so bright that air catches it" to explain why the Sun doesn't change its apparent size (not sure if the same applies to the Moon, probably not!)

[robinofloxley]

The method is based on this real experiment: http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart and I used their images.

Great post mate, I've seen that experiment before, but unfortunately you'll probably get the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory thrown back as the explanation.  See, the "issue" with that experiment posits that the Earth is round and that light travels (to all intents and purposes for this experiment) in a straight line.  Just like Eratosthenes used shadows to prove that the Earth was round, the posit there was also that light travels in a straight line.  That FET says light curves upwards the further it travels, it means that Eratosthenes wasn't actually measuring the circumference of a globe, he was measuring the diameter of a flat disc.  Yes, flat Earthers believe that the Earth is some 25,000 miles in diameter, despite many different, yet repeatable scientific experiments showing that it is in fact just 7,900 miles in diameter.

Basically, the same argument will be used to dispute the effects of parallax, because that conveniently explains how two different people in different locations can apparently see different things.  The EA theory is full of holes, but it's the best they've got to explain the "day spot" on Earth and things like sunrise and sunset.  When I challenged it in a previous post all I got was "you are making a flawed assumption, or about 5 of them", yet was offered nothing to back up why his assumption wasn't equally flawed.  Interesting debates though.

To be honest, if the only counter argument is bendy light, then I'll be happy with that. It's such a weak argument, no way of calculating the effect, no way to test the theory at all. Can be used to explain away anything at all. Can't see the bottom of a ship? Horizon below level? Bridge curving over the horizon? Parallax? Bendy light solves all your issues because all it has to do is magically bend just the right amount where you want it and when you want it, to fit the observation. Yeah, right.

[RhesusVX]

To be honest, if the only counter argument is bendy light, then I'll be happy with that. It's such a weak argument, no way of calculating the effect, no way to test the theory at all. Can be used to explain away anything at all. Can't see the bottom of a ship? Horizon below level? Bridge curving over the horizon? Parallax? Bendy light solves all your issues because all it has to do is magically bend just the right amount where you want it and when you want it, to fit the observation. Yeah, right.

Yep, I'm just assuming that EA will be at least be part of the explanation along with stars rotating above the Moon:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I agree, there are a lot of elegant (you could say convenient!) equivalencies on paper.  I see you've posted a fair bit on here, but in my short time here it has become abundantly clear that FET is all based on Zetetic inquiry and flipping the switch where something is observed, an experiment devised, and a conclusion made from that observation.  No further testing of the hypothesis takes place, and it is never challenged.

• Water finds its own level, and the horizon at sea looks level.  Therefore, the conclusion is that the Earth cannot be a sphere, it must be flat.
• Shadows of two sticks of identical length cast different length shadows in different parts of the Earth at the same time.  Therefore, the conclusion is that the Sun cannot be huge and far away, it must be very small in comparison to the Earth and close to it.
• The entire surface of the Earth isn't always illuminated from the small, close Sun.  Therefore, the conclusion is that light cannot travel in a straight line, it must must curve upwards, and the further it travels, the more it curves.

All very elegant and explains away lots of things, but the issue is that none of these pseudo-scientific theories have any proof because of the way they are approached.  The conclusions are entirely down to what is observed and never challenged. 

It almost feels less about flat Earth or globe Earth, and more about how people choose to undertake scientific inquiry.