Stellar and Lunar perspective

If the stars are close to us, on some sort of dome over a flat earth, how come their positions relative to each other are not subject to perspective effects when viewed from different locations? And given that the Moon is round and not flat, how come we can always see the same side of it if it's only 3000 miles away? If it's that close, we'd see different parts when viewed simultaneously from different countries.

22 views and still no answers from anybody? 

22 views and still no answers from anybody? 

What makes you think that any of the 22 viewers were FE'ers?

If I have to come up with an explanation for the FE model, I would say the edge of the universe is some 3500 miles above the surface of the Earth. This boundary has an interesting characteristic -- as you get closer and closer to the edge, space and time starts to distort in such a way that it would take infinite amount of time to reach the edge, sort of like the event horizon of a black hole. So from the view point on the surface, the stars appear to be million of light years away. So the general view of the sky does not change with perspective on the surface.

How's that for a quick one-minute-make-up explanation? I just realize that still won't solve the perspective issue regardless of how space and time bends. Does anyone else want to come up with a better explanation? Particularly someone who follows FET closely?

Still no valid answers given. Even Parsifail seems to be afraid to take this one on. And he likes being hammered flat by the force of logic.

Well, I thought of another possibility. The reason we see the same area being lit on the Moon from two different location far away from each other is because of holographic projection. I just know it's true.

Well, I thought of another possibility. The reason we see the same area being lit on the Moon from two different location far away from each other is because of holographic projection. I just know it's true.

Just like early New Englanders just knew that witches were responsible for crop failures, right?

It's not very well drawn, but I have to get ready for work soon so can't spend too long perfecting it.



The black circles are observers, the large grey circle is the moon, the dotted lines are light rays and the greenish thing is the Earth. As you can see, there would be a very slight difference in the observed lunar face, but the same is true for RET.

It's not very well drawn, but I have to get ready for work soon so can't spend too long perfecting it.



The black circles are observers, the large grey circle is the moon, the dotted lines are light rays and the greenish thing is the Earth. As you can see, there would be a very slight difference in the observed lunar face, but the same is true for RET.

Absolutely the most pathetic diagram ever posted by anyone on the forum so far. And that includes all posts by Levee. You have the light from the moon veering off in two different directions. You have not included anything to show what happens to the light rays coming from the rest of the moon that we can't see. According to your diagram, anyone standing directly under the moon at zenith in the sky will not be able to see it. It's complete tripe.

You have the light from the moon veering off in two different directions.

What exactly is wrong with that? The Moon is not a laser, nor is it a mirror; light reflecting off its surface is not going to be directional.

You have not included anything to show what happens to the light rays coming from the rest of the moon that we can't see.

I have indicated the two extreme points of the Moon's angular diameter for two extreme observers. Are you seriously asking me to draw what happens to every single photon that might ever possibly reflect off the moon's surface in any conceivable direction?

According to your diagram, anyone standing directly under the moon at zenith in the sky will not be able to see it.

My diagram says nothing at all about an observer standing directly under the moon.

if light bent with that steep a radius, then we would not also be able to do parallax measurements on deep space bodies.

if light bent with that steep a radius, then we would not also be able to do parallax measurements on deep space bodies.

And how do you suggest parallax would work in FET in any case?

I have indicated the two extreme points of the Moon's angular diameter for two extreme observers. Are you seriously asking me to draw what happens to every single photon that might ever possibly reflect off the moon's surface in any conceivable direction?

No, but you should at least draw some of them.

My diagram says nothing at all about an observer standing directly under the moon.

It says it all. You show that light that starts travelling in a directly downward path towards the earth will start to veer off to the side as it travels. If light always does this, it would never reach the surface directly under the moon. If it is capable of travelling straight down then it is inconsistent that some of it would veer off to the side. One or other of these must be true, and neither of them is satisfactory.

No, but you should at least draw some of them.

I did. Four, no less.

It says it all. You show that light that starts travelling in a directly downward path towards the earth will start to veer off to the side as it travels. If light always does this, it would never reach the surface directly under the moon. If it is capable of travelling straight down then it is inconsistent that some of it would veer off to the side. One or other of these must be true, and neither of them is satisfactory.

There are no light rays which travel directly downward in my diagram.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 30, 2009, 11:43:05 AM

No, but you should at least draw some of them.

I did. Four, no less.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 30, 2009, 11:43:05 AM

It says it all. You show that light that starts travelling in a directly downward path towards the earth will start to veer off to the side as it travels. If light always does this, it would never reach the surface directly under the moon. If it is capable of travelling straight down then it is inconsistent that some of it would veer off to the side. One or other of these must be true, and neither of them is satisfactory.

There are no light rays which travel directly downward in my diagram.

You are seriously expecting us to not notice that you have sliced up my quotes there to misrepresent what I said? Maybe you're not just playing dumb.

You are seriously expecting us to not notice that you have sliced up my quotes there to misrepresent what I said? Maybe you're not just playing dumb.

Where have I misrepresented anything you said?

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 30, 2009, 11:31:22 AM

if light bent with that steep a radius, then we would not also be able to do parallax measurements on deep space bodies.

And how do you suggest parallax would work in FET in any case?

thats your job to figure out.

thats your job to figure out.

I'm not the one implying it would work.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 30, 2009, 11:49:48 AM

You are seriously expecting us to not notice that you have sliced up my quotes there to misrepresent what I said? Maybe you're not just playing dumb.

Where have I misrepresented anything you said?

I said you should draw light rays coming from the moon that cannot be seen. You said you thought it was unreasonable to draw every single light ray and I said you should at least draw some of them (meaning the ones that can't be seen.) You then cut that phrase out and replied with "I did. Four no less". Maybe you don't understand what misrepresentation means?
You also seem to think that stating there are no light rays that travel down in your diagram means something. It doesn't. It's almost a non sequitur. It's this simple - if light can travel directly down from the moon to the ground in a straight line, there is no reason for it to bend to the side. If light cannot travel directly from the moon to the ground in a straight line then the moon would be invisible at the zenith.
Now go away and look for holes in my exact phrasing to be pedantic about, since scientific debate is beyond your pea brain.

It's not very well drawn, but I have to get ready for work soon so can't spend too long perfecting it.



The black circles are observers, the large grey circle is the moon, the dotted lines are light rays and the greenish thing is the Earth. As you can see, there would be a very slight difference in the observed lunar face, but the same is true for RET.

Lovely.  Now could you please include the moon's light source (a.k.a. the sun) in that diagram so that we can see how lunar phases are produced?

I said you should draw light rays coming from the moon that cannot be seen. You said you thought it was unreasonable to draw every single light ray and I said you should at least draw some of them (meaning the ones that can't be seen.) You then cut that phrase out and replied with "I did. Four no less". Maybe you don't understand what misrepresentation means?

The light rays I drew are the extreme points of what can be seen for each observer, as evidenced by them being tangential to the Moon's surface.

You also seem to think that stating there are no light rays that travel down in your diagram means something. It doesn't. It's almost a non sequitur. It's this simple - if light can travel directly down from the moon to the ground in a straight line, there is no reason for it to bend to the side. If light cannot travel directly from the moon to the ground in a straight line then the moon would be invisible at the zenith.

Vertical light does not bend, but light which is not precisely vertical does. As can be clearly seen in my diagram, light will only bend to one side if it is already heading in that direction already.

Lovely.  Now could you please include the moon's light source (a.k.a. the sun) in that diagram so that we can see how lunar phases are produced?

I'll create another diagram to show that effect later on. Trying to illustrate both effects in the same diagram would only serve to clutter it.

Quote from: markjo on October 30, 2009, 12:25:02 PM

Lovely.  Now could you please include the moon's light source (a.k.a. the sun) in that diagram so that we can see how lunar phases are produced?

I'll create another diagram to show that effect later on. Trying to illustrate both effects in the same diagram would only serve to clutter it.

Well come on, we're waiting.

Your diagram also makes no sense in terms of how the Moon would appear with relation to background stars. The difference between which stars were occulted by the Moon would be much greater in your model than it is in real life. Your model also fails to address the matter of stellar perspective at all.

It's not very well drawn, but I have to get ready for work soon so can't spend too long perfecting it.



The black circles are observers, the large grey circle is the moon, the dotted lines are light rays and the greenish thing is the Earth. As you can see, there would be a very slight difference in the observed lunar face, but the same is true for RET.

Shouldn't its bendy light be the same bendy as sun-light?  And why do the "light rays" that start out parallel not bend along the same path?