I've read the FAQ, searched the forum, and asked several times (and variations) myself. All I've heard is...thundering silence.
I've read the FAQ, searched the forum, and asked several times (and variations) myself. All I've heard is...thundering silence.Your challenge is well-document, complete with a worked example, in Experiment #0003 in The RE Primer.
The FE model would seem to predict that we'd see pretty much any and all parts of the moon, save for a tiny area at the very top. Furthermore, two observers at any modest distance apart should see different views of the moon at the same time.
Furthermore, if the moon is in fact between 35 and 10,000 miles above us (depending on with FE model you believe), we should very easily be able to determine it's distance through simple parallax. Two observers, 2,000 miles apart, take a digital photo of the moon at the same time. It's position against background stars should be wildly different between the two (not to mention the two seeing readily visibly different portions of the moon's surface. (I realize that in FE theory stars aren't in the realm of light years away--but they are still farther than the moon depending on which theory you believe--even twice as far should be enough.)
If you can't explain such a rediculously simple observation and won't even try, we are left to assume that your model is wrong.
Your challenge is well-document, complete with a worked example, in Experiment #0003 in The RE Primer.
>>>Poorly converted alternative (http://www.zamzar.com/getFiles.php?uid=4821029488376001191843118&targetID=wgKEL4yfnSlmEXDXhxlj5A_I_I).<<<Your challenge is well-document, complete with a worked example, in Experiment #0003 in The RE Primer.
Aaaaagggghhhhh! Office 2007! And to think, I once had some respect for you. ;-)
Which is odd too, because a couple of days ago it was a regular .doc.
I quit Microsoft because of Vista and Office 2007. 2003 is the last version of Office I will ever use (though I do have Vista+2007 on a VM just in case), although I'm 100% OpenOffice.org on Linux now anyway. Why not HTML better yet, on-line HTML?
Here is an animationThat looks amazingly like incident light illuminating a changing area on a sphere. Rather than a 'spotlight'.
Here is an animationThat looks amazingly like incident light illuminating a changing area on a sphere. Rather than a 'spotlight'.
Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the moon--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versâ--the effect is a comparatively distinct disc of moon-light.TB you disappoint me. I was one of the people who pointed out to you that this was a load of bollocks last week. The total angle of refraction is dependant purely upon the total change in density and is nothing to do with the distance over which the change occurs.
http://www.sigmundvoid.com/?p=81
Recycling bollocks is how he tries to understand reality, hence he's delusional.Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the moon--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versâ--the effect is a comparatively distinct disc of moon-light.TB you disappoint me. I was one of the people who pointed out to you that this was a load of bollocks last week. The total angle of refraction is dependant purely upon the total change in density and is nothing to do with the distance over which the change occurs.
TB you disappoint me. I was one of the people who pointed out to you that this was a load of bollocks last week. The total angle of refraction is dependant purely upon the total change in density and is nothing to do with the distance over which the change occurs.
As the moon passes over our vicinity it appears to wobble as we view it from a slightly different viewing angle. Here is an animation (http://bp1.blogger.com/_h0ptpX-4ncM/RcX4IhSAfKI/AAAAAAAAAA8/1AjQ8LkBlT0/s1600-h/Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif).
We see the same face of the moon because, like the sun, the moon's light is also limited to a spotlight.
That's because the moon is a sphere in Flat Earth Theory. It emits light in all directions.
...it is bent downwards towards the earth vis-a-vis the refraction properties of Snells Law.
As the moon passes over our vicinity it appears to wobble as we view it from a slightly different viewing angle.Tom, oh shit. I've got to quit laughing. I don't know whether to reach out to you out of pity, make fun of you, continue laughing, or just shake my head in sadness. (later: I've quit laughing and chosen the latter.) This is the single-most retarded thing I've ever heard, I really do think so. You cannot possibly believe what you just said. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I'm going to pretend you did.
We see the same face of the moon because, like the sun, the moon's light is also limited to a spotlight.
What angle of change has occurred 'over several miles' to produce that image? Answer: a small one. The apparent position of that berg is never going to be more than a few degrees away from it's actual position regardless of how much air it has passed through. This cannot be used to explain the position of the moon. Idiot.QuoteTB you disappoint me. I was one of the people who pointed out to you that this was a load of bollocks last week. The total angle of refraction is dependant purely upon the total change in density and is nothing to do with the distance over which the change occurs.
If the angle of light changes at the upper strata, that angular change will become significant through its path over tens of thousands of miles of atmosphere. The ray of light will continue to diverge from the norm, separating downwards with time and distance. It takes no leap of the mind to see that even a small change in the angle of light can cause a large effect over a distance.