[rabinoz]

Before I start, when I say "for everyone", I do mean for all those over the half of the earth that can see the moon.

We are told

The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

In the diagram below I have drawn how I picture the geometry at the time of a full moon (some diagrams in the Wiki might help) of the earth, sun and moon. I have not drawn the moon above the sun, as the time of a full moon the moon would be around 20,000 km from the sun, so a few tens of kilometres could hardly make a difference! If the moon were much higher it would appear much smaller at the time of a full moon - and it certainly does not.

In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the object (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.

OK, so you have the half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.

The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon.

But, we know for a fact that the phase of moon does not change (substantially) throughout the night or for observers in different locations, and not as appears here

almost a full moon for those where the moon is near the horizon and only a half moon for those directly under the moon.

Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki.

[Tom Bishop]

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away.

Of course the sizes and distances aren't to scale, but the angles are to scale. That's what matters.

No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

Does it matter? We absolutely know what perspective does to objects inches away, miles away, tens of miles away, hundreds of miles away. Why would it be any different for thousands of miles? And why would perspective cause the moon to appear to turn? Have you ever observed perspective to cause ANYTHING to appear to turn? Perspective causes things to appear smaller, not turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone.

By "ancient geometric theories" do you mean basic highschool-level trigonometry? Because trig is extremely easy to prove.

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?

Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.

[Woody]

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

We can certainly predict what the moon should look like to observers.  A simple experiment involving a ball with markings on it and a camera should work.

1. Mark out a circle on flat ground with a diameter of 249 or 25 feet depending on the scale you feel more appropriate.

2. Place distinct markings on the ball so you can compare what area on the ball is visible.

3. Suspend the ball above the ground at about 30 or 3 feet at some point you think the moons orbital path should be.

3. Observe the ball and take pictures from different points in the circle.

4. Mark a 40 or 4 foot straight line or you can make an arc on the ground.

5. Hang the ball 230 or 23 feet away.

6. Observe the ball and take pictures from different points on the line or arc.

7. Compare the pictures and take note of the markings that are visible on the ball.

8. You can then conduct more observations of the ball moving it around a bit.

Not perfect but should allow a reasonable prediction of how the moon should appear from different locations on Earth.

You can also use this to help try narrow down the orbit of the moon by comparing observations of the moon and those made during the experiment.

[Tom Bishop]

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away.

Of course the sizes and distances aren't to scale, but the angles are to scale. That's what matters.

How do we know that's all that matters?

No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

Does it matter? We absolutely know what perspective does to objects inches away, miles away, tens of miles away, hundreds of miles away. Why would it be any different for thousands of miles? And why would perspective cause the moon to appear to turn? Have you ever observed perspective to cause ANYTHING to appear to turn? Perspective causes things to appear smaller, not turn.

How do we "know" what happens to perspective tens or hundreds of miles away? Who studied that?

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone.

By "ancient geometric theories" do you mean basic highschool-level trigonometry? Because trig is extremely easy to prove.

In high school they also teach that Christopher Columbus discovered that the earth is round, that deoxygenated blood is blue, that an apple fell on Newton's head and helped him prove gravity, and that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.

Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?

Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.

Perspective hasn't been tested at any large distance at all. At what distances has it been tested? Who studied it? Please name names and cite studies rather than claiming that it has been proven.

[TotesNotReptilian]

How do we know that's all that matters?

The face of a sphere that can be seen depends on the angle that you view it at. If you are in front of it, you can see the front face. If you are on the right, you can see the right face, etc...

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

How do we "know" what happens to perspective tens or hundreds of miles away? Who studied that?

I don't know. It's common knowledge though, and can be easily derived. In fact, I personally derived the equation before looking it up. The burden of proof is on you to disprove it if you think it is wrong.

Here is the equation for the apparent angular diameter (a) of an object of height (h) that is a given distance (d) away:

a = 2*arctan(h/2d)

This equation works for any distance, assuming there are no optical distortions.

In high school they also teach that Christopher Columbus discovered that the earth is round, that deoxygenated blood is blue, that an apple fell on Newton's head and helped him prove gravity, and that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.

My point wasn't that anything taught in high school must be true. My point was that trig is extremely easy to prove or disprove. Once again, if you think trigonometry is wrong, the burden of proof is on you to disprove common knowledge.

Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?

Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.

Perspective hasn't been tested at any large distance at all. At what distances has it been tested? Who studied it? Please name names and cite studies rather than claiming that it has been proven.

Don't dodge the question. Why do you think the equation given above can't be used at larger distances?

Pyrrhonism can be fun to think about, but ultimately this attitude that you have of "nothing can be known for certain" is totally useless for trying to build theories of how the world works. Sooner or later, in order to learn anything useful, you will have to assume something is true. Being skeptical is fine and dandy, but if you have no evidence to suggest that certain pieces of common knowledge are wrong, then it's usually best to assume they are correct.

[rabinoz]

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

You claim that "We operate from experiment to experience here". Oh spare me! You have provided absolutely NO evidence of anything except that "The earth looks flat!".
Please document your experimental evidence to suggest that what you claim has any validity!

I did clearly state that the size of objects was grossly enlarged, otherwise they would be invisible! And why on earth would anyone ever suggest the perspective would turn an object?
You claim that I "have provided no experiment"! Really, I do think that the onus is on YOU to provide some evidence that this counter intuitive proposition might be true.

I am rapidly learning that Zetetic means that you just imagining anything you need to bolster you theory is automatically true!

Yes, I know that YOU will take no notice of anything else I say, but many more people than you and I could read this, and I believe that those are who you must convince.

[Roundabout]

Perspective hasn't been tested at any large distance at all. At what distances has it been tested? Who studied it? Please name names and cite studies rather than claiming that it has been proven.

That depends on what you mean by perspective. If you are referring to the area of geometry that is commonly used by artists to create realistic-looking 3-D drawings, then perspective in that sense is a branch of mathematics. Geometry and other areas of math start with a set of propositions (axioms and postulates) and see what can be derived logically from these propositions. The theorems and proofs are purely logical structures that are completely independent of what happens to light when it passes through air, or the capabilities of human vision, or how many spatial dimensions there are in our universe. Any errors in perspective in this sense would be logical errors in the proofs of the theorems, and I really doubt you’ll find any at this date.

On the other hand, perhaps by perspective you are referring to aerial perspective, the effect the atmosphere has on the appearance of distant objects. That’s studied and explained by the field of optics, a branch of physics, and it’s been studied quite thoroughly. We have a very good quantitative understanding, grounded in quantum physics, of how light behaves when passing through media with temperature and density gradients, and how it interacts with matter.

Now, we already have, in my opinion, an excellent explanation for why the moon appears to have the same phase at the same time for all viewers, as well as roughly the same angular diameter. And this explanation includes a round earth. If you are proposing an alternative explanation and you want to be taken seriously, you need to show that yours is a better explanation than the currently accepted mainstream explanation. And it either needs to be consistent with our current understanding of optics, or to show how and why that needs to be modified.

[rabinoz]

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

OK, you want the drawing to scale! Here you have it. We can't see the sun, moon or the people, but it's to the best scale that I can manage.

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

I have drawn in the paths that the light would seem to be requited for the people on the ground to see a complete full.

The observer under the moon looks straight up to the Full Moon and the observer where the full moon is rising or setting has to look horizontally to see the moon.

What seems most weird to me is that most of this "ray bending" occurs in the (almost) vacuum around the moon, where there is no air to refract the light at all!

Surely I am not the only one to see that whole scenario seems completely ridiculous! The writers of the Wiki obviously never gave a thought to "practical matters" like light paths.

And you claim you "theories" are backed by observation. Yes, I know "The earth seems flat outside my window!" or in you case on Monterey Bay.

I get asked if I have checked my observations (say as to sunrise directions) everywhere in the world! So I ask you have you performed your Monterey Bay experiment everywhere in the world?

[Unsure101]

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

OK, you want the drawing to scale! Here you have it. We can't see the sun, moon or the people, but it's to the best scale that I can manage.

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

I have drawn in the paths that the light would seem to be requited for the people on the ground to see a complete full.

The observer under the moon looks straight up to the Full Moon and the observer where the full moon is rising or setting has to look horizontally to see the moon.

What seems most weird to me is that most of this "ray bending" occurs in the (almost) vacuum around the moon, where there is no air to refract the light at all!

Surely I am not the only one to see that whole scenario seems completely ridiculous! The writers of the Wiki obviously never gave a thought to "practical matters" like light paths.

And you claim you "theories" are backed by observation. Yes, I know "The earth seems flat outside my window!" or in you case on Monterey Bay.

I get asked if I have checked my observations (say as to sunrise directions) everywhere in the world! So I ask you have you performed your Monterey Bay experiment everywhere in the world?

You have failed to take into account the "bendy light". Please redraw your diagrams with this magic accounted for.

[rabinoz]

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

OK, you want the drawing to scale! Here you have it. We can't see the sun, moon or the people, but it's to the best scale that I can manage.

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

I have drawn in the paths that the light would seem to be requited for the people on the ground to see a complete full.

The observer under the moon looks straight up to the Full Moon and the observer where the full moon is rising or setting has to look horizontally to see the moon.

What seems most weird to me is that most of this "ray bending" occurs in the (almost) vacuum around the moon, where there is no air to refract the light at all!

Surely I am not the only one to see that whole scenario seems completely ridiculous! The writers of the Wiki obviously never gave a thought to "practical matters" like light paths.

And you claim you "theories" are backed by observation. Yes, I know "The earth seems flat outside my window!" or in you case on Monterey Bay.

I get asked if I have checked my observations (say as to sunrise directions) everywhere in the world! So I ask you have you performed your Monterey Bay experiment everywhere in the world?

You have failed to take into account the "bendy light". Please redraw your diagrams with this magic accounted for.

Maybe my drawing skills are lacking, but those bendy lines from the moon down to the observers are meant to represent the "^Bendy _Light"!

Maybe some better artist than I can draw some much prettier bendy light (I think it has to be curly light now!).

You might pass a message to Tom Bishop (he takes no notice of me!) that in my book light travels in straight lines unless refracted, reflected or diffracted!

<<image edited a bit>>

[Roundy]

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

Sig'd.  What a beautiful statement of our aims.

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here.  The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.

[Ecthelion]

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

Sig'd.  What a beautiful statement of our aims.

Isn't "experiment" merely a part of "experience"? The difficult task is getting from experience to knowledge.

[rabinoz]

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

Sig'd.  What a beautiful statement of our aims.

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here.  The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.

In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM ».
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.

Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.

The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.

So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."

Flat Earth Sun Moon - original

Wide spacer

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

The reply I get was:

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.

But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.

At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.

Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote:

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!

Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.

you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.

[Unsure101]

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

Sig'd.  What a beautiful statement of our aims.

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here.  The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.

In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM ».
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.

Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.

The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.

So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."

Flat Earth Sun Moon - original

Wide spacer

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

The reply I get was:

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.

But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.

At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.

Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote:

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!

Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.

you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.

Oh Rabinoz, you have much to learn.
The aether of the firmament causes the light to bend thereby giving rise to everyone on the FE to see the moon at the same phase at the same time.
How dare you doubt the wiki.

[rabinoz]

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

Sig'd.  What a beautiful statement of our aims.

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

You shouldn't use phrases like "common sense" around here.  The more rabid REers may blast you for putting your faith in such a worthless thing.

In my OP I asked what I thought the very reasonable question: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 18, 2016, 12:22:27 PM ».
I included the diagram on the left below showing how I interpret the phases of the moon from "the Wiki" - I will not bother quoting it as you are obviously quite familiar with it.
In this diagram horizontal and vertical distances are to scale, but the objects (and people) sizes are exaggerated, or else they would be quite invisible.

Half the moon illuminated by the light from the sun. But, it is illuminated on the side!. The observer directly underneath is looking straight up and clearly sees only half the side facing him illuminated, that is sees only a HALF MOON, not a Full Moon.

The other observer, for which the sun would be just setting and the moon rising (or vice versa), sees most of the part of the moon facing him as illuminated, so sees a nearly full moon. But all observers that can see the moon, see it as completely full and the same size.

So I asked, "Please explain where I am mistaken, because this is how I interpret what is said in the Wiki."

Flat Earth Sun Moon - original

Wide spacer

Flat Earth Sun Moon - almost to scale

The reply I get was:

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

Really, the diagram does not show the moon a few feet above our heads at all! I did say that the objects (sun, moon and observers were enlarger, so we could SEE the illuminated part of the moon.
Tom claims "You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". All I have assumed is that light travels in straight lines! THAT is hardly one of "ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone". That is quite current. Yes I know that light can be refracted by the atmoplane, but no more than 0.5° or so. AND "YOU have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance". Since I have only used the accepted "light travels in straight lines" YOU have to prove you case.

But, to satisfy Tom I made the objects to scale (you can't see them, but they really are) and drew in the paths that I thought the light would to take for the observers to see the full moon as I know from observation with my own eyes it is seen.

At the time of a full moon, at midnight (roughly) I look almost overhead and see a full moon.

Now if you are telling me that light can follow those weird loopy paths just to make the moon seem right
I'll repeat Ton Bishop's quote:

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.

OK, now please show some "experiment" that shows that light can follow such a path or provide some other explanation for what we all observe!

Because I can list numerous things that you claim without the slightest shred of evidence or reports on any experiments.

you are most certainly the ones that need to provide evidence here.

Oh Rabinoz, you have much to learn.
The aether of the firmament causes the light to bend thereby giving rise to everyone on the FE to see the moon at the same phase at the same time.
How dare you doubt the wiki.

Yes, so naive of me! Mind you in "the other place^[1]" I was criticised for quoting Rowbotham!

Though I thought that some Flat Earth adherent might have had a more reasonable^[2] explanation. No such luck!

[1] The Flat Earth Society. Try it sometime - different!
[2] Must wash my mouth out - naughty word - reasonable!

[Unsure101]

Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow. 
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?

[Tom Bishop]

Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow. 
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?

They're not at the same altitude.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow. 
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?

They're not at the same altitude.

At what altitude of the moon would this be possible then?

[Woody]

Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow. 
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?

They're not at the same altitude.

You are right they are not the same altitude.

What does your observations led you to conclude the difference between the altitudes are?

And:

At what altitude of the moon would this be possible then?