The Moon
« on: July 29, 2017, 01:53:52 PM »
We can only see one side of the moon. No matter where on earth we are, we are unable to see even 1 degree more of the surface of the moon. But with the movement of the moon over the flat earth model it should be possible to see all "sides" (with the exception of the top) of the moon. Why don't we?

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2800
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2017, 08:25:00 PM »
That is actually a myth. The moon does rock back and fourth as it passes overhead, although it does not get to its side.

I recall from an astronomy text that astronomers were able to map out large parts of the far side of the moon long before we had ever sent craft there, but I will have to find the source on where I read that.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 764
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: The Moon
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2017, 08:56:33 PM »
That is actually a myth. The moon does rock back and fourth as it passes overhead, although it does not get to its side.

I recall from an astronomy text that astronomers were able to map out large parts of the far side of the moon long before we had ever sent craft there, but I will have to find the source on where I read that.

I'd like to see that quote - but it's not true.  The moon does undergo something called "nutation" in physics and "libration" in astronomy - which is a slight wobble in it's orientation .  This allows us to see a small amount past a hemisphere - but not by much.

My favorite image of this is useful to visualise it (this is a set of photos of the moon, taken on consecutive nights over a month and put together into a video):



It's clear that you can certainly see a little way past one hemisphere - but not by much.

As any rate - this isn't Douglas's point here.

He's saying that if the full moon is overhead someplace (lets' say West Africa - at the Equator) - then the people on the equatorial east coast of South America - ought to have a view of the moon that's from a direction that's at least 45 degrees away - and it should be a crescent moon.  But in reality, it isn't.  They see more or less the exact same thing that is simultaneously being seen in Africa.

Imagine a triangle with the moon at the apex, West Africa and the East coast of South America being the points at the base of the triangle.   Since the height of the triangle (in FET) is somewhere around 3000 miles - and the base is around 4,000 miles - the angle subtended between the two lines of sight should be 53 degrees.

That would mean that if the viewer in Africa sees the usual "full moon" view - then the person in South America should be seeing 53 degrees of the "Dark side" and someone out in the middle of the Indian ocean should be able to see at least another 50 degrees of the moon.

But this doesn't happen.  The appearance of the moon is more or less the same from all points at the same latitude - and that can only be the case if the moon is MUCH more than 3000 miles away (240,000 miles, for example).
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: The Moon
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2017, 01:48:36 AM »
Speaking of the moon, it makes a nice backdrop for the International Space Station. https://www.space.com/29889-space-station-crosses-moon-photo.html

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2017, 02:50:29 AM »
That is actually a myth. The moon does rock back and fourth as it passes overhead, although it does not get to its side.

I recall from an astronomy text that astronomers were able to map out large parts of the far side of the moon long before we had ever sent craft there, but I will have to find the source on where I read that.

I'd like to see that quote - but it's not true.  The moon does undergo something called "nutation" in physics and "libration" in astronomy - which is a slight wobble in it's orientation .  This allows us to see a small amount past a hemisphere - but not by much.

My favorite image of this is useful to visualise it (this is a set of photos of the moon, taken on consecutive nights over a month and put together into a video):



It's clear that you can certainly see a little way past one hemisphere - but not by much.

As any rate - this isn't Douglas's point here.

He's saying that if the full moon is overhead someplace (lets' say West Africa - at the Equator) - then the people on the equatorial east coast of South America - ought to have a view of the moon that's from a direction that's at least 45 degrees away - and it should be a crescent moon.  But in reality, it isn't.  They see more or less the exact same thing that is simultaneously being seen in Africa.

Imagine a triangle with the moon at the apex, West Africa and the East coast of South America being the points at the base of the triangle.   Since the height of the triangle (in FET) is somewhere around 3000 miles - and the base is around 4,000 miles - the angle subtended between the two lines of sight should be 53 degrees.

That would mean that if the viewer in Africa sees the usual "full moon" view - then the person in South America should be seeing 53 degrees of the "Dark side" and someone out in the middle of the Indian ocean should be able to see at least another 50 degrees of the moon.

But this doesn't happen.  The appearance of the moon is more or less the same from all points at the same latitude - and that can only be the case if the moon is MUCH more than 3000 miles away (240,000 miles, for example).

Because of the moon's libration we are able to see 59% of its surface over a period of time-not large parts of the  moon's far side.
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: The Moon
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2017, 06:16:02 AM »
Thanks 3DGeek for understanding to point I was making.
It's the biggest sticking point for me whenever I see the animation of the sun and moon moving over the flat earth.
The sun makes sense but I can't get my head around the moons supposed path and its distance from earth (3000miles ?) and the limited surface area we actually observe.





« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 06:19:15 AM by Douglas »

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2800
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2017, 02:59:28 PM »
Can you show us an example of where an receding object 3000 miles in height turned 45 degrees to its side?

You are basing your math on the theories of the Ancient Greeks, who never tested what happens to perspective at large scales.

There are many arguments on what could be happening on those scales. For instance, the increasing angle of the perspective lines into the horizon may max out at some point where the tilt of the object matches the angle of the perspective lines. We already know from observations that the higher a receding object is, the slower it turns as it travels into the distance. How slow does the turn get? Does it ever get so slow that the turn is imperceptible or that it stops turning at some scale?  These are all important unanswered questions. We need to know how that relationship scales upwards with increasing height and distance, which the Ancient Greeks have neglected to study.

Without real evidence for the maximums of perspective theory, we have no knowledge on this subject, and the argument you are making is an entirely theoretical one.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 04:58:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Moon
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2017, 03:23:13 PM »
Can you show us an example of where an receding object 3000 or more miles in height turned 45 degrees or more, or to its side?

You are basing your math on the theories of the Ancient Greeks who never tested what happens to perspective at large scales.

There are many arguments on what could be happening on those scales. For instance, the increasing angle of the perspective lines into the horizon may max out at some point until the tilt of the object matches the angle of the perspective lines. We already know from observations that the higher a receding object is, the slower it turns as it travels into the distance. How slow does the turn get? Does it ever get so slow that it is imperceptive or that it stops turning at some scale?  These are all important unanswered questions. We need to know how that relationship scales upwards with increasing height and distance, which the Ancient Greeks have neglected to study.

Without real evidence for the maximums of perspective theory, we have no knowledge on this subject, and the argument you are making is an entirely theoretical one.
It doesn't have to turn 45 degrees. It only has to be shown that it should turn more than the amount it observably does. 3,000 miles up, angles from approx 23 degrees to 157 degrees. If I'm remembering the angles someone came up with in another thread correctly. We see 59% of the moon, and that's not all along the same axis based on the image. So we'll say about 55% on one axis, or 198 degrees of angle, or about 9 extra degrees on either side. Now, do you have a link to your claim that we've done some tests in this regard? Shouldn't be too hard to extrapolate out to the distance being worked with and see what we can come up with based on those observations. Or maybe one of our friends with some skill in 3D modeling can give us something that approximates these figures.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2800
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Moon
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2017, 04:55:08 PM »
We will need a real world example of a very distant object turning with any significance to perspective.

Perspective in a 3D model may not be an appropriate example. Ie., is the perspective based on simple rules that perspective lines converge at a finite distance, or is it based on the the Ancient Greek continuous universe where perspective lines approach each other infinitely? Since we do not know what ruleset large scale perspective operates on in reality, due to lack of effort of the Ancient Greeks to study the maximums, any 3D model is currently invalid until such knowledge can be obtained.

Re: The Moon
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2017, 05:29:43 PM »
We will need a real world example of a very distant object turning with any significance to perspective.

Perspective in a 3D model may not be an appropriate example. Ie., is the perspective based on simple rules that perspective lines converge at a finite distance, or is it based on the the Ancient Greek continuous universe where perspective lines approach each other infinitely? Since we do not know what ruleset large scale perspective operates on in reality, due to lack of effort of the Ancient Greeks to study the maximums, any 3D model is currently invalid until such knowledge can be obtained.
Then do it both ways and see what comes out of it. Have it run once with perspective lines that converge at the maximum distance someone has claimed to see the horizon on Earth (ergo the point at which perspective lines converge if the world was flat) and run it according to the Greek suggestion. If neither of them produce what is needed for the moon to work the way we can see it works, then FE needs a new hypothesis for how the moon works.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 764
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: The Moon
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2017, 08:40:06 PM »
We will need a real world example of a very distant object turning with any significance to perspective.

Perspective in a 3D model may not be an appropriate example. Ie., is the perspective based on simple rules that perspective lines converge at a finite distance, or is it based on the the Ancient Greek continuous universe where perspective lines approach each other infinitely? Since we do not know what ruleset large scale perspective operates on in reality, due to lack of effort of the Ancient Greeks to study the maximums, any 3D model is currently invalid until such knowledge can be obtained.

The laws of perspective (the real ones - not the ones that artists use) are based on the principle that light travels in straight lines (or at least, very nearly so in ordinary circumstances).   They are a mathematical fact that emerges from the observation of "the rectilinearity of light".   Sure, there are atmospheric distortions that can bend light rays where there are drastic temperature or humidity changes - but when the majority of the path travels above the atmosphere - this is not a consideration...and all the rays of light going through a region will be bend by the same amount.

So for sun and moon - where the first 2840 miles (FET) is through vacuum and the remaining 60 through air that is extremely thin for most of those miles - we can pretty much say light travels in straight lines.

Having established this fact - we may use it in mathematical calculations that allow us to figure out where things are and how they are moving.

One very important finding is that there is NO optical phenomenon of any kind that can cause light to spiral around itself...so no amount of atmospheric weirdity will get the FE moon to look like it does out there in the real world at all times of day and at all positions on the Earth.

No matter what lens you use, you cannot get the moon to rotate about it's center point...and that's what you see along a line from North to South pole.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?