Sorry, but without explanatory notes, these images are completely meaningless.
I also have no idea what this means: "the Moonshine looks exactly like the flat Earth model". What is "moonshine" (apart from cheap hooch)? And how can reflected light from the moon's surface even vaguely mirror what the surface of the earth looks like?
Unfortunately for this erroneous claim, our atmosphere is dynamic while the face of the moon is static. Argument over.
Unfortunately for this erroneous claim, our atmosphere is dynamic while the face of the moon is static. Argument over.
The Thermosphere is largely static for the most part though. Yea as you get closer to the bottom you see more variance but the topmost layer is largely static and only changes slightly throughout the day. If space mirrors the Earth and the Moon is closest to Earth then the Moon must be the difference between the Exosphere and the Thermosphere.
Furthermore, the earth rotates, which means a different face of the earth is always looking at the moon. The moon on the other hand always shows the same face. Dynamic vs Static.
Now, you might say that the earth isn't rotating so that's why we always see the same reflective face on the moon but the problem with that is that your attempts to show this coincidence are done by using a particular face of the earth of your choosing. It would seem that in your world view the moon would always be reflecting that particular earth face while we all know that the moon is overhead on different parts of the earth all the time.
These claims are so full of errors its not even funny. It's no different than thinking you see Jesus in the clouds.
Okay, so then what the hell is your point?
You are aware that stars do in fact appear to go in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres? Notice in your pic that on one side they go counter clockwise while on the other they go clockwise. Thank you for admitting that this would be the case if the earth were round, as it is.
Well the stars aren't actually going in a different direction, but from the reference of the observer it would most definitely appear that way because people in the southern hemisphere are essentially upside down in reference to people in the northern hemisphere.
Well the stars aren't actually going in a different direction, but from the reference of the observer it would most definitely appear that way because people in the southern hemisphere are essentially upside down in reference to people in the northern hemisphere.
That would make sense if the image was a composite of people standing on opposite poles but this is the image of one guy with a static camera capturing 200 degrees of vision West to East. Unless he was standing on opposite poles and taking a composite of the Entire Earth's vision of the Sky at once it shouldn't look like this in the RE Model.
Well the stars aren't actually going in a different direction, but from the reference of the observer it would most definitely appear that way because people in the southern hemisphere are essentially upside down in reference to people in the northern hemisphere.
That would make sense if the image was a composite of people standing on opposite poles but this is the image of one guy with a static camera capturing 200 degrees of vision West to East. Unless he was standing on opposite poles and taking a composite of the Entire Earth's vision of the Sky at once it shouldn't look like this in the RE Model.
Unless the guy was standing on or near the equator, which is exactly where star rotation pictures like this one are taken.
If you are gonna make claims please use correct information. I've made threads about this very subject before and am well versed in this discussion. If you want to post pictures and claim things please provide a source we can verify the location the picture was taken. I would guess this was taken somewhere around 30-50° N or S. This is exactly how people navigate using Polaris.
Yeah, because the moon actually does go around the earth. Never mind the fact that stars too drop below the horizon. So again, you aren't making a relevant point
Well for starters what is keeping that gigantic hill of water in place? You would think since it's so much higher then the people that they would be swimming in the ocean if water really flowed wherever it wanted to.Let's try this; go learn about telephoto/high power zoom lens photography, and then get back to us.
Where is the Horizon if it's at Eye level then it must be at about 135 degrees as 180 degrees is straight up and 90 degrees is straight forward (level with our feet) (78 Degrees would be at a 15% degradation or downhill slope and distance would be considered 100% irrelevant to the percentile even the nanometer level)
Well for starters what is keeping that gigantic hill of water in place? You would think since it's so much higher then the people that they would be swimming in the ocean if water really flowed wherever it wanted to.Let's try this; go learn about telephoto/high power zoom lens photography, and then get back to us.
Where is the Horizon if it's at Eye level then it must be at about 135 degrees as 180 degrees is straight up and 90 degrees is straight forward (level with our feet) (78 Degrees would be at a 15% degradation or downhill slope and distance would be considered 100% irrelevant to the percentile even the nanometer level)
Well still doesn't make much sense to me. It's like the Moon. Sometimes it (And the Sun) actually is much closer to Earth then other times.
The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model. IQ of 190 or not, I wish I had Sculelos's brain for a day. I want to know how he comes up with this stuff.
Well still doesn't make much sense to me. It's like the Moon. Sometimes it (And the Sun) actually is much closer to Earth then other times.
Uh..... you do understand that your moon image is a fake don't you? Or..... don't tell me you thought it was a real photo? LOL.
The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model.
The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model.
In actuality, the moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it's closer to the horizon than when it's high in the sky—because it's farther away by nearly one earth radius. Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.
The width of the supposed reflection at the horizon is the giveaway with this pic. It's far too wide.
No, no it doesn't
The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model.
In actuality, the moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it's closer to the horizon than when it's high in the sky—because it's farther away by nearly one earth radius. Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.
The width of the supposed reflection at the horizon is the giveaway with this pic. It's far too wide.
It's called Supermoon and the Moon is only 2/5ths it's normal distance meaning the Moon is 2.5 Times as big as average meaning the Moon goes from About 5-6 Degrees wide in the Sky to about 32 degrees wide in the Sky.
The Moon is always as Wide as it is Tall. Therefore the Usual distance to the moon is 237,000 miles but on that night the Moon was only 94,800 Miles from Earth.
I'd say that's like a slightly larger Moon then normal, definitely not the Super moon I'm talking about.
I'd say that's like a slightly larger Moon then normal, definitely not the Super moon I'm talking about.
The size of the Moon at apogee is 28.5 degrees and at perigee it is 32 degrees. That's a difference of 12%. That is the actual difference in size between the Moon and Supermoon.
I'd say that's like a slightly larger Moon then normal, definitely not the Super moon I'm talking about.
The size of the Moon at apogee is 28.5 degrees and at perigee it is 32 degrees. That's a difference of 12%. That is the actual difference in size between the Moon and Supermoon.
I've measured the Moon as little as 5 Degrees at Apogee and as large as about 32 degrees judging by the Supermoon. That's about a 2.5 Times Distance (250% Variation) or about going from 100K to 250K distance.
I'd say that's like a slightly larger Moon then normal, definitely not the Super moon I'm talking about.
The size of the Moon at apogee is 28.5 degrees and at perigee it is 32 degrees. That's a difference of 12%. That is the actual difference in size between the Moon and Supermoon.
I've measured the Moon as little as 5 Degrees at Apogee and as large as about 32 degrees judging by the Supermoon. That's about a 2.5 Times Distance (250% Variation) or about going from 100K to 250K distance.
5 degrees? Either delusion or outright lie, either way that is utter rubbish.
I'd say that's like a slightly larger Moon then normal, definitely not the Super moon I'm talking about.
The size of the Moon at apogee is 28.5 degrees and at perigee it is 32 degrees. That's a difference of 12%. That is the actual difference in size between the Moon and Supermoon.
I've measured the Moon as little as 5 Degrees at Apogee and as large as about 32 degrees judging by the Supermoon. That's about a 2.5 Times Distance (250% Variation) or about going from 100K to 250K distance.
5 degrees? Either delusion or outright lie, either way that is utter rubbish.
Sounds like it but when you see it and measure it in the Sky yourself you tend to believe that the Moon is just on a highly eccentric flight path around Earth and must vary considerably (at least 250%)
(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1531754_567424113341638_1771416775_n.jpg)
I never measure in Inches though. Always in degrees.
I never measure in Inches though. Always in degrees.
Do you really mr 190 IQ? What is a smaller unit of degrees? Inches? Would you happen to know what the " stands for when discussing an angular measurement? Because it is more precise than inches which is already more precise than degrees.
I never measure in Inches though. Always in degrees.
Do you really mr 190 IQ? What is a smaller unit of degrees? Inches? Would you happen to know what the " stands for when discussing an angular measurement? Because it is more precise than inches which is already more precise than degrees.
I need this 32 hour workday to end as my brain is scrambled. First I use degrees instead of minutes, then I use seconds (") instead of minutes ('). Need sleep!
Hopefully my posts are all now fixed.
As demonstrated in the image posted earlier, and numerous others taken by amateur astronomers the world over, there isn't a 250% variance in the apparent size of the Moon.I never measure in Inches though. Always in degrees.
Do you really mr 190 IQ? What is a smaller unit of degrees? Inches? Would you happen to know what the " stands for when discussing an angular measurement? Because it is more precise than inches which is already more precise than degrees.
I need this 32 hour workday to end as my brain is scrambled. First I use degrees instead of minutes, then I use seconds (") instead of minutes ('). Need sleep!
Hopefully my posts are all now fixed.
Arc Minutes certainly makes more sense. It's possible that Earths Atmosphere is acting like a concave or convex surface and distorting true distances and sizes. I'm not sure. Optically the Moon varies up to 250% that I am certain.
However if the Atmosphere is magnifying or reducing the Size of the Moon it means the Optical measurement is not accurate. I still need more research done into this topic before I can come to any real conclusions.Regardless of whether it is being altered, it should remain consistent so that relative sizes can be compare accurately.
You forgot to mirror some of those pictures Sculelos. How are we supposed to know what's going on now?
Could you maybe add some swirl effects to clear things up a bit more?
My mathematics would indicate otherwise but it might also be related to luminosity making the apparent size of the Moon appear bigger as it's always a bright golden or reddish color when it's huge looking.
On a somewhat related note I also looked at the Cosmic Milky Way and compared it to my Earth and Moon model and it's eerie similar.
Could you maybe add some swirl effects to clear things up a bit more?Or bunch of intersecting lines everywhere indicating the prismatic paths of electromagnetic polarizing duplex-dimensional psionic protoss anti-radiation.
What is the point of these overlays? How does any of this support anything other than the fact you can overlay a bunch of things in the solar system and make it look like nothing?
The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model.
In actuality, the moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it's closer to the horizon than when it's high in the sky—because it's farther away by nearly one earth radius. Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.
The width of the supposed reflection at the horizon is the giveaway with this pic. It's far too wide.
It's called Supermoon and the Moon is only 2/5ths it's normal distance meaning the Moon is 2.5 Times as big as average meaning the Moon goes from About 5-6 Degrees wide in the Sky to about 32 degrees wide in the Sky.
The Moon is always as Wide as it is Tall. Therefore the Usual distance to the moon is 237,000 miles but on that night the Moon was only 94,800 Miles from Earth.
The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model.
In actuality, the moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it's closer to the horizon than when it's high in the sky—because it's farther away by nearly one earth radius. Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.
The width of the supposed reflection at the horizon is the giveaway with this pic. It's far too wide.
It's called Supermoon and the Moon is only 2/5ths it's normal distance meaning the Moon is 2.5 Times as big as average meaning the Moon goes from About 5-6 Degrees wide in the Sky to about 32 degrees wide in the Sky.
The Moon is always as Wide as it is Tall. Therefore the Usual distance to the moon is 237,000 miles but on that night the Moon was only 94,800 Miles from Earth.
You can't be serious. The distance from the earth to the moon varies between 225,622 and 252,088 miles.
It's called Supermoon and the Moon is only 2/5ths it's normal distance meaning the Moon is 2.5 Times as big as average meaning the Moon goes from About 5-6 Degrees wide in the Sky to about 32 degrees wide in the Sky.
Therefore the Usual distance to the moon is 237,000 miles but on that night the Moon was only 94,800 Miles from Earth.
I'd say that's like a slightly larger Moon then normal, definitely not the Super moon I'm talking about.
(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1003941_567399216677461_584847463_n.jpg)
Again..... you do understand that this moon image is a fake don't you? Or..... don't tell me you thought it was a real photo?
There is NO such thing as a "supermoon". You really need to get over this.
News 24 thinks it is a real picture of the moon.
News 24 thinks it is a real picture of the moon.
I'm intrigued. You totally refute any/all pictures of our planet taken from outer space (showing a spherical earth) as being bogus, or manipulated with software.
How is it then that you accept these images as being unquestioningly accurate, and with no software manipulation having been applied?
Why the double standard?
[...] a media outlet believed that supermoons do exist and that the picture was accurate, otherwise they would not have reported it to be accurate, nor would they have claimed it was a supermoon.
Sorry, but this is totally erroneous. The moon's size never alters by more than 1.5% regardless of its orbit or its distance to earth. I can't believe that people still maintaining these fanciful ideas of "supermoons" in the 21st century. Aren't they teaching our kids astronomy in high schools any more?
Once again an absurd claim! The moon is always around 240,000 miles from the earth
There is NO such thing as a "supermoon". You really need to get over this.
How did you measure 32deg?
You do realise that 32 degrees would take up over 1/6th of the sky?
How did you obtain this measurement? Something seems off.
I really don't know where you come up with some of what you say. There is a "supermoon" and while the term originated with astrology, not astronomy, it does exist.
Optical Degrees which means that if 360 degrees is all around you and 180 degrees is in front of you from holding your hands straight out side by side then 90 degrees is half your arm span 45 degrees is half of half your arm-span then 30 degrees is 2/3rds of half of half of your arm-span. Fingers were used to tighten the measurement to 32 degrees but with my method I could have been upwards to a few degrees off but I'm pretty accurate using this method.
I really don't know where you come up with some of what you say. There is a "supermoon" and while the term originated with astrology, not astronomy, it does exist.
Nope. The term "supermoon" is NOT an astronomical term used by any astronomer or astrophysicist. I also think you may be confusing the 14% larger with its diameter, and not its area?
I'd say that's like a slightly larger Moon then normal, definitely not the Super moon I'm talking about.
(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1003941_567399216677461_584847463_n.jpg)
I was looking at the Moon tonight and noticed that the Moonshine looks exactly like the flat Earth model, so I have recreated it for your viewing pleasure to see how I view the Earth, The Heavens and the Entire Universe.
(https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1522168_566667676750615_920884421_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1010630_566667723417277_70717038_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1509838_566667716750611_757209529_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1013696_566667720083944_2001524031_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1607017_566667726750610_315697233_n.jpg)
Optical Degrees which means that if 360 degrees is all around you and 180 degrees is in front of you from holding your hands straight out side by side then 90 degrees is half your arm span 45 degrees is half of half your arm-span then 30 degrees is 2/3rds of half of half of your arm-span. Fingers were used to tighten the measurement to 32 degrees but with my method I could have been upwards to a few degrees off but I'm pretty accurate using this method.
Other than this method of measuring the subtended angle of the moon being hopelessly inaccurate, it's technically incorrect. The figure is actually 0.524º and nowhere near 32º.
You need a theodolite to measure and confirm this.(http://www.ualberta.ca/~pogosyan/teaching/ASTRO_122/lect2/figure01-09a.jpg)
[Note: The "½" in the diagram is a soft conversion of 0.524]
I was looking at the Moon tonight and noticed that the Moonshine looks exactly like the flat Earth model, so I have recreated it for your viewing pleasure to see how I view the Earth, The Heavens and the Entire Universe.
Are you sure you are not just repeating that myth about the ancients who thought that the moon was just a mirror and what you see was a reflection of the earth ? I think then term is "plagriarism."|?
I really don't know where you come up with some of what you say. There is a "supermoon" and while the term originated with astrology, not astronomy, it does exist.
Nope. The term "supermoon" is NOT an astronomical term used by any astronomer or astrophysicist. I also think you may be confusing the 14% larger with its diameter, and not its area?
What program are you using to make these, Sculelo?