[ah4truth2017]

I'd initially started on a detailed proof of one aspect of moon phases, when I realized the entire cosmology around the moon is a complete mathematical mess. Rather than just hit one of the issues, I put together a graphic and will walk through a number of problems as we visualize what must happen for the FET position to be correct.

TL;DR - While this can't (by itself) disprove the FET, it exposes some serious problems with the currently accepted explanations regarding the moon. The aim is that this disproof of the current cosmology can stand without any more evidence than simply looking up at the moon. We've all seen the phases, right? (If you really want evidence, I'd start here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon)


To begin with, a quick summary of the FET cosmology:

• The sun & moon are 30-mile diameter spheres.
• They rotate around the north pole at an altitude of  roughly 3000 miles, while 1) moving back and forth across the equator to make seasons and 2) "wobbling" (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon) up and down to make the moon phases
• A "perspective effect" maintains their apparent size throughout the day and as they rise/set.
• Like lights in fog, eventually the light from the sun & moon gets too far to see, and they actually set.

Okay, now to the graphic I put together:



For purposes of easing the explanation, let's walk through these phases as though I'm in the northern hemisphere, and seeing the moon in the same position every night, looking east. Assuming the FET cosmology is correct:

• For this first quarter, sun and moon are at the same altitude and so I see a quarter moon. The sun would be on the other side of the earth. Nothing wrong yet.
• In a full moon, the sun needs to illuminate most of the moon (at least enough as to be imperceptible). Where is the sun at this point? Either a) it's on the ground incinerating me or b) it's still at 3000mi and the moon (basic trigonometry) is a crazy number of miles above that. My math says at least 100,000 miles (and more like 300,000) for the trig to work. (more on this below)
• With a waning moon, the moon can stay at 3000mi while the sun has to (again, basic trig) have a much higher altitude. Even a generous 60degree angle (a nice crescent moon) puts the sun over 8000 miles. I'm not sure how big the angle can be before we'd see a "new moon," but it likely puts the sun at similar altitudes of the moon when it's full. So, 100-300k miles.
• With a waxing moon, the sun has to now be positioned on the same side of the earth as me. The math doesn't allow for anything else. It's not an issue that the sun and moon are both visible, but is clearly a problem that this is the only way for it to be waxing.

Let's walk through the problems:

• The sun (or moon) needs to be a lot further away to produce the kind of angles necessary for moon phases, not just a little "wobbling" around the 3000 mile mark.
• Even if a "perspective effect" could maintain the apparent size a) the vanishing point for a 30-mile object is about 90,000 miles and b) the object that's further away (than ~3,000mi) would be at all sorts of wrong angles relative to the ground.
• We clearly see both waxing and waning moons at night, and yet the requisite position of the sun doesn't support that possibility.
• I described the view as though I'm looking east, with the sun to my left on the other side of the world. On the same night as the moon heads towards setting, I'd be looking west with the sun to my right. This means we'd get both crescents in a single night.

Again, not enough to disprove FET on its own, but demonstrates the mathematical impossibility that is the current understanding of how the sun and moon relate to each other.

QED

[Tom Haws]

I haven't thought through this FE sun/moon business that far. But your reasoning sounds okay to me.

[ah4truth2017]

Silence? Well I'll add that I didn't see this wiki page before posting that. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory

There are a few things that page ignores about the Round Earth view of the moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon)

• The moon's average distance is 239,000 miles.
• On average, its orbit is inclined 5 degrees from "the ecliptic" (which I understand to mean the plane of Earth's orbit)
• Basic trig on that shows that the full moon is (on average) nearly 21,000 miles above the center of the Earth's orbital plane, where the Earth doesn't block it from the sun. (Given its radius of roughly 4,000 miles)
• But how is it the southern hemisphere can see a full moon then, if the moon is so high above our orbit? At 239,000 miles, there is less than a 2 degree difference in our viewing angle between the north pole and south pole.

[Curious Squirrel]

You're forgetting the magical effects of perspective. It's quite literally their only argument for anything involving the sun/moon, and it basically does whatever they require it to do. If you want to make an argument about something like this you need to either A) Prove to their satisfaction that their perception/idea of perspective is incorrect (good luck!) or B) Prove that two 'parallel perspective lines' will never meet (in other words prove an oxymoron wrong, so again good luck!).

Silence? Well I'll add that I didn't see this wiki page before posting that. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory

There are a few things that page ignores about the Round Earth view of the moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon)

• The moon's average distance is 239,000 miles.
• On average, its orbit is inclined 5 degrees from "the ecliptic" (which I understand to mean the plane of Earth's orbit)
• Basic trig on that shows that the full moon is (on average) nearly 21,000 miles above the center of the Earth's orbital plane, where the Earth doesn't block it from the sun. (Given its radius of roughly 4,000 miles)
• But how is it the southern hemisphere can see a full moon then, if the moon is so high above our orbit? At 239,000 miles, there is less than a 2 degree difference in our viewing angle between the north pole and south pole.

To be honest, I'm not sure why that's even IN the wiki. The very thread it comes from explains precisely what is wrong with that image, and the user that drew it is somewhat notorious for incorrect views/interpretations. Hell, he's over on the other site right now claiming the number of search hits for a term can correlate to the number of believers in that term. Via this 'method' he's claiming there are presently about 46 million people who believe in FE.

[ah4truth2017]

You're forgetting the magical effects of perspective.

I did mention it, as that is about the only way to explain it, and I find it odd that you quoted my round earth description to point that out. However, even a perspective effect cannot account for:

• At some point, even the perspective effect has to lose to the vanishing point.
  
• My perceived angle to the sun/moon. (Whichever one has to be >100,000 miles away for full/new moon angles to work)
• Seeing the same crescent of the moon in the same night, whether I look east at moonrise or west at moonset. (Really, a southern-facing lit side is impossible)
• The light that can't make it through the non-transparent atmosphere from the sun can bounce of the moon and make it through the same amount of atmosphere? (I'm thinking particularly of moonrise/moonset)

[Curious Squirrel]

You're forgetting the magical effects of perspective.

I did mention it, as that is about the only way to explain it, and I find it odd that you quoted my round earth description to point that out. However, even a perspective effect cannot account for:

• At some point, even the perspective effect has to lose to the vanishing point.
  
• My perceived angle to the sun/moon. (Whichever one has to be >100,000 miles away for full/new moon angles to work)
• Seeing the same crescent of the moon in the same night, whether I look east at moonrise or west at moonset. (Really, a southern-facing lit side is impossible)
• The light that can't make it through the non-transparent atmosphere from the sun can bounce of the moon and make it through the same amount of atmosphere? (I'm thinking particularly of moonrise/moonset)

That's the thing. They ALSO claim perspective is what keeps us seeing the same side of the moon. That is, perspective somehow keeps everyone seeing the moon from the bottom, all night long, all over the world. "If I put a Rubik's cube 30 feet in the air, and had people stand 30 feet to either side, they would all see different sides. But if I moved it to 1 mile in the air, everyone would see the same size." This is the effect he claims is happening with the moon, although I've never seen him really reply to the objection that it's not a working analogy.

[ah4truth2017]

They ALSO claim perspective is what keeps us seeing the same side of the moon.

But I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that (from a single point) you see the same crescent as it moves across the sky. That is, if you see the left side at moonrise, you also see the left side at moonset even though the sun is now to your right. (Across the north pole) Regardless, I'm more interested in hearing from them about the varying elevations of the sun & moon (required by trigonometry) and how a waxing-crescent can even make sense.

Please keep it on topic and let a rebuttal come through instead of positing what the expected excuses will be.

[Tom Haws]

They are short-handed. Discussing among ourselves is a work of love. If we self-curate, it reduces their (actually pretty much just TB's) work load.

[ah4truth2017]

They are short-handed. Discussing among ourselves is a work of love. If we self-curate, it reduces their (actually pretty much just TB's) work load.

If I'm understanding your point, you're suggesting I should be fine with responses & discussion? I didn't mean to suggest that I'm not, but I've been through a fair bit of the forum and seen all the typical answers from the FES side. However, since I've made a case here that 1) is easily observed by anyone on their own and 2) mathematically disproves the FES model for moon phases, I wanted to be sure the original case wasn't lost by a trailing discussion.