Debate: Moon Phases

Moon phases cannot be caused by the shadow object, because if you look closely, you will see the dark part of the moon:


Explain please.

Erm, are you sure about that? Where did you get that picture?

I'm pretty sure the dark part of the moon is visible. Perhaps not always to the naked eye. But anyway the earth's atmosphere diffuses some light which reflects off the dark side of the moon giving it come visibility. The same thing happens in a lunar eclipse, only more pronounced.

Moon phases cannot be caused by the shadow object, because if you look closely, you will see the dark part of the moon:


Explain please.

When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The moon moves in a slow circular pattern around the hub of the earth similar to the sun. Therefore the shadow on the moon will change slightly from day to day, as the angle of the moon differs. At first quarter moon the celestial moon is hung overhead of the observer. This will illuminate approximately one half of the moon's surface; when the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. As the moon moves westward, it becomes located at an angle to the observer whereas its phases will slowly modify, changing to a waxing gibbous.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 04, 2007, 06:57:58 AM

Moon phases cannot be caused by the shadow object, because if you look closely, you will see the dark part of the moon:


Explain please.

When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The moon moves in a slow circular pattern around the hub of the earth similar to the sun. Therefore the shadow on the moon will change slightly from day to day, as the angle of the moon differs. At first quarter moon the celestial moon is hung overhead of the observer. This will illuminate approximately one half of the moon's surface; when the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. As the moon moves westward, it becomes located at an angle to the observer whereas its phases will slowly modify, changing to a waxing gibbous.

That's not right. The angle of change would be more dramatic as both are moving. Also how does the sun produce a full moon unless it is significantly lower than the moon, while also being able to produce a new moon by being significantly higher? Particularly on the 28 day cycle that it is now.

I'm just going to be an asshole, but who says that this shadow object is completely opaque at all times?

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 04, 2007, 06:57:58 AM

Moon phases cannot be caused by the shadow object, because if you look closely, you will see the dark part of the moon:


Explain please.

When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The moon moves in a slow circular pattern around the hub of the earth similar to the sun. Therefore the shadow on the moon will change slightly from day to day, as the angle of the moon differs. At first quarter moon the celestial moon is hung overhead of the observer. This will illuminate approximately one half of the moon's surface; when the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. As the moon moves westward, it becomes located at an angle to the observer whereas its phases will slowly modify, changing to a waxing gibbous.

False.

The phase of the Moon is not related to its position in his sky. You can see the Moon at any phase at any angle. You just need to look at the right time of day at the right time of the day.

How does the sun illuminate the side of the moon visible to us if the sun acts as a spotlight?

How does the sun illuminate the side of the moon visible to us if the sun acts as a spotlight?

That's a valid point. Valid points aren't allowed on this website. You fail.

How does the sun illuminate the side of the moon visible to us if the sun acts as a spotlight?

The sun's light is limited to a spotlight through the refraction of Snell's Law, remember?

Thus, at an altitude 3,000 miles above the sea level of the earth, 2,900 miles above the top of the atmosphere, the sun's light travels unencumbered.

That's not right. The angle of change would be more dramatic as both are moving. Also how does the sun produce a full moon unless it is significantly lower than the moon, while also being able to produce a new moon by being significantly higher? Particularly on the 28 day cycle that it is now.

If you've ever observed the phase of the moon over the course of a night you would find that the phase does become gradually modified as the moon and sun moves in tandem.

The phase of the Moon is not related to its position in his sky. You can see the Moon at any phase at any angle. You just need to look at the right time of day at the right time of the day.

The phase of the moon certainly is related to the moon's position in the sky and location of the observer upon the earth. The very same relations apply in the Round Earth model; the phase of the moon is also explained as the moon's natural day and night.

Quote

How does the sun illuminate the side of the moon visible to us if the sun acts as a spotlight?

The sun's light is limited to a spotlight through the refraction of Snell's Law, remember?

Thus, at an altitude 3,000 miles above the sea level of the earth, 2,900 miles above the top of the atmosphere, the sun's light travels unencumbered.
....

You seem to have changed the height of the Sun, again. Does the height go as low as well below 750 miles as Rowbotham documented?

Please draw us a diagram of how a Full moon can be illuminated across its entire Earth-facing surface by the Sun across the disc of the FE and yet not illuminate the observer beneath the Moon. Really, I challenge you.

Then repeat the process for a half moon.

...

Quote

That's not right. The angle of change would be more dramatic as both are moving. Also how does the sun produce a full moon unless it is significantly lower than the moon, while also being able to produce a new moon by being significantly higher? Particularly on the 28 day cycle that it is now.

If you've ever observed the phase of the moon over the course of a night you would find that the phase does become gradually modified as the moon and sun moves in tandem.
...

You avoided his question. Is the Sun lower than the full moon or does it use some other magic to illuminate the entire Earth-facing side?

...

Quote

The phase of the Moon is not related to its position in his sky. You can see the Moon at any phase at any angle. You just need to look at the right time of day at the right time of the day.

The phase of the moon certainly is related to the moon's position in the sky and location of the observer upon the earth. The very same relations apply in the Round Earth model; the phase of the moon is also explained as the moon's natural day and night.

Wrong. An observer can see a full moon anywhere in his sky. Over the course of the night, he can see it rise, move over head, and then set. Again: The phase of the Moon is not related to its position in his sky.

Again: The phase of the Moon is not related to its position in his sky.

Well, actually there is a relationship, but I don't think it is the kind of relationship Tom is implying.

The moon's phase is tied to it's position in the sky in the sense that you will never see a full moon when the sun is up, nor will you ever see a waxing crescent in the morning, nor a waning crescent in the evening.

If you know the phase of the moon, and the position of the sun, you can infer the moon's position in the sky, and in that sense there is a relationship.

Quote from: Gulliver on October 04, 2007, 04:43:38 PM

Again: The phase of the Moon is not related to its position in his sky.

Well, actually there is a relationship, but I don't think it is the kind of relationship Tom is implying.

The moon's phase is tied to it's position in the sky in the sense that you will never see a full moon when the sun is up, nor will you ever see a waxing crescent in the morning, nor a waning crescent in the evening.

If you know the phase of the moon, and the position of the sun, you can infer the moon's position in the sky, and in that sense there is a relationship.

The point is, though, that the Moon's position is the observer's sky is not related to the Moon's phase. It's related to its relative positive to the Sun in the sky.

...you will never see a full moon when the sun is up...

I have. But it was like 15-20 minutes before sunset, when you can see the sun without it burning out your eyes and the moon was just rising so it was huge. So there was a completely full huge moon and the sun both pretty close together. It was pretty much a straight up Luke's Star Wars desert moment and it was definitely one of the coolest things I have ever seen.

I have. But it was like 15-20 minutes before sunset, when you can see the sun without it burning out your eyes and the moon was just rising so it was huge. So there was a completely full huge moon and the sun both pretty close together. It was pretty much a straight up Luke's Star Wars desert moment and it was definitely one of the coolest things I have ever seen.

The moon is illuminated by the sun (in both RE and FE) so I believe you are incorrectly remembering your experience.

The full moon and the sun are NEVER observed in close proximity.  It may be possible to see them both in the sky at the same time, but only if the moon is just rising, and sun is just setting.  And even then they will be on opposite horizons.

When the moon is near the sun it is always a crescent or a new moon.

How does the sun illuminate the bottom of the moon?  Is the moon higher than the sun and if so, the sun would no longer be a spotlight.

Because the the moon is on the other side of the Earth from the spotlight and above the atmosphere, the refraction would have to be something like this:



This is obviously false.

Sorry, the sun could not illuminate the moon in the way you are describing, Tom.

Quote from: WorkOverTime on October 04, 2007, 05:25:01 PM

I have. But it was like 15-20 minutes before sunset, when you can see the sun without it burning out your eyes and the moon was just rising so it was huge. So there was a completely full huge moon and the sun both pretty close together. It was pretty much a straight up Luke's Star Wars desert moment and it was definitely one of the coolest things I have ever seen.

The moon is illuminated by the sun (in both RE and FE) so I believe you are incorrectly remembering your experience.

The full moon and the sun are NEVER observed in close proximity.  It may be possible to see them both in the sky at the same time, but only if the moon is just rising, and sun is just setting.  And even then they will be on opposite horizons.

When the moon is near the sun it is always a crescent or a new moon.

Nope, I'm correctly remembering it. The sun was setting in the west and the moon was relatively in the north direction (90^oish apart). I remember it well be cause it was so wierd and so awesome at the same time.

Tom, you're going to have to think up something else.

Nope, I'm correctly remembering it. The sun was setting in the west and the moon was relatively in the north direction (90^oish apart). I remember it well be cause it was so wierd and so awesome at the same time.

I am sorry, but rather than assume that the laws of celestial mechanics are suddenly invalid, the simpler explanation is that you did not properly remember the separation between the moon and sun.

Of course, I would be interested if you could provide some photos of this.  The full moon and the sun being separated by 90^o degrees is not supposed to happen in RE.  And if it did, I think it is a safe bet that there would be some photo documentation of the event from a reliable source.

Quote from: WorkOverTime on October 04, 2007, 06:05:37 PM

Nope, I'm correctly remembering it. The sun was setting in the west and the moon was relatively in the north direction (90^oish apart). I remember it well be cause it was so wierd and so awesome at the same time.

I am sorry, but rather than assume that the laws of celestial mechanics are suddenly invalid, the simpler explanation is that you did not properly remember the separation between the moon and sun.

Of course, I would be interested if you could provide some photos of this.  The full moon and the sun being separated by 90^o degrees is not supposed to happen in RE.  And if it did, I think it is a safe bet that there would be some photo documentation of the event from a reliable source.

Are you a FEer or REer?

RE'er

Good. If you had said FEer then I would have instantly won this debate.

Anyway, it happened. I was with my family when it happen; they saw it too. I have never seen it happen before that or after so I guess it was one of those things that just happened. You know, like lunar eclipses are rare but they happen. This happened too but I guess it's much rarer.

Here's a picture I found on the internet. What I saw looked cooler though.

Quote from: Max Fagin on October 04, 2007, 04:59:43 PM

...you will never see a full moon when the sun is up...

I have. But it was like 15-20 minutes before sunset, when you can see the sun without it burning out your eyes and the moon was just rising so it was huge. So there was a completely full huge moon and the sun both pretty close together. It was pretty much a straight up Luke's Star Wars desert moment and it was definitely one of the coolest things I have ever seen.

Actually that was a sunset of Tatooine's twin suns. (Max, don't be so quick to bite at the bait.)

Here's a picture I found on the internet. What I saw looked cooler though.

I am reasonably confidant that that image is a fake.

Read the photographer's tutorial on how to photograph the moon.  He talks about how he blends a sky shot and a moon shot to make it appear as if the moon is in the frame.

http://www.danheller.com/moon.html

"you will eventually place the moon somewhere in the picture"

"The goal, of course, is to make it appear the moon is actually in the scene."

It's all about halfway down the page.

Many of this man's photos are faked for aesthetics.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it does render them useless as documentation of a real astronomical event.

I am sorry, but rather than assume that the laws of celestial mechanics are suddenly invalid, the simpler explanation is that you did not properly remember the separation between the moon and sun.

Just because someone claims to have witnessed an event which directly contradicts the Round Earth model he is suddenly either lieing or ignorant?

What reason would he have to lie? He's a self proclaimed RE proponent after all.

Suddenly it seems as if you're the one claiming Conspiracy, Max.

I am claiming that when someone relates an account that contradicts RE, the more likely alternative is that he is lying.  Yes.  But I am not calling anyone a liar.  I will always give them the chance to prove the veracity of their story.

The difference between you and me Tom is that I am open to conversion, provided reliable evidence is provided.  The full moon and the sun in the same part of the sky would convince me that RE is erroneous, so I ask for evidence that such an event has ever occurred.

WorkOverTime provided photographic evidence, but it comes from a man who admits that his images are faked, and even explains how he forges them.


This isn't an unrealistic expectation.  Its just good science.  You should always be skeptical of a fantastic claim, at least until corroborative evidence can be provided.

So Max Fagin, let me summarize what you have said to me thus far. "Show me a picture of the sun and moon together to prove your argument. Any picture you show me is photoshopped. So if you cannot show me a picture then you lose, but if you do show me a picture then you lose because it's fake." Yeah, I think that's a pretty good summary.

Here's another picture. Is it fake too?

Where did I say that every photo you showed me will be photoshopped?  I simply asked for photographic evidence that what you were saying was correct.  I assumed that it was clear from context that I meant photos from a reliable source, and not from a confessed photo manipulator or forger.

I am not calling you a liar, nor am I putting you in a no win situation.  I am simply assuming the simpler of two alternatives.  Your alternative is fantastic, but not impossible.  But in order to convince me that you are telling the truth, your evidence must be rock solid.

That first photo you gave me was an admitted forgery.  However I can find nothing against the second one.  Could you provide more information on it (date, time etc.) so I can try to confirm its authenticity?