Parallax and the Moon?

Quote from: Username on February 29, 2008, 01:46:33 PM

Well, in the model I'm working on it may well be.  However, that is not a necessary implication from what I've said.  It would be particularly damning to RE if a flat estimate yielded results that were more accurate than using a theoretically more correct round method.

So I did misread it then.  How is the plane constructed then, without a third point or normal?

Nothing in the flat earth model is more accurate than the round earth model.   

Reread this post then <insert facepalm here>

What's so hard about this that you can't understand it Tom?  Read again.  It says that a second calculation (the one with 2.37% error) was made as if the two cities were on the same plane i.e. as if they were on a flat earth.  The roundness of the earth was not taken into account in this calculation.  That's it.

You can't assume a Flat Earth on a Round Earth. Two distant points on a RE in the experiment will have a different "down" and a different "up."

For example, if the second observer was standing a quarter the way around the world the moon would be at 90 degrees to the observer. The moon will be setting.

Nothing in the flat earth model is more accurate than the round earth model.

Actually, since the earth is flat, the FE model just happens to be the more accurate model.

Actually, since the earth is flat, the FE model just happens to be the more accurate model.

No, I was right when I said nothing in the FE model is more accurate than the RE model. 

Actually, since the earth is flat, the FE model just happens to be the more accurate model.

Another classic circular argument...

FE --> The moon 3000 miles away --> ∴ Earth is flat

So why don't we see other parts of the moon?  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, its just that the whole moon/sun/3000 miles theory is falsifiable from your own armchair. (excluding a flat, shapeshifting?!? moon).   Therefore, without an explanation, the whole theory can be thrown out.

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2008, 11:47:08 AM

Actually, since the earth is flat, the FE model just happens to be the more accurate model.

Another classic circular argument...

FE --> The moon 3000 miles away --> ∴ Earth is flat

So why don't we see other parts of the moon?  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, its just that the whole moon/sun/3000 miles theory is falsifiable from your own armchair. (excluding a flat, shapeshifting?!? moon).   Therefore, without an explanation, the whole theory can be thrown out.

He doesn't know.  Tom was owned so many times that he he learned to abandon arguments. 

We cannot see other parts of the moon because the moon disappears below the horizon before it turns to any significant degree.

Your problem then occurs as to why it doesn't turn over a week's duration, and show a different side, if its rotation is so slow. Or, perhaps, does it do a little jiggle dance rotation, turning slowly one way, and then another way?

We cannot see other parts of the moon because the moon disappears below the horizon before it turns to any significant degree.

Sorry Tom, but as proven on the other thread people standing thousands of miles apart and looking up at the moon, even if one looks east to see it and the other looks west, will see the same face.  If the moon were a mere 3000 miles away, that wouldn't be possible.

How can you make a plane off of two spots on a round earth without a normal or third point?

How can you make a plane off of two spots on a round earth without a normal or third point?

Good point.  Presumably, the cities were placed on a hypothetical plane 500 miles apart.  It's hard to judge these calculations unless we know exactly how the author made his calculation.  We just don't have enough information.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2008, 12:34:24 PM

We cannot see other parts of the moon because the moon disappears below the horizon before it turns to any significant degree.

Sorry Tom, but as proven on the other thread people standing thousands of miles apart and looking up at the moon, even if one looks east to see it and the other looks west, will see the same face.  If the moon were a mere 3000 miles away, that wouldn't be possible.

He's right Tom.  There's simply no way observers thousands of miles apart could see the same face of the moon if it was only 3000 miles away; just do the math.  I'm afraid we have exposed a giant hole in your theory.

How can you make a plane off of two spots on a round earth without a normal or third point?

True, but what does it matter? Look at my graph, it doesn't really matter? Like I told you before, my best guess is probably that they just used the RE assumption, and tried to calculate it based on curvature of the Earth, and other math, etc., but unless they were ridiculously off, the Moon is over 300k kilometers off, just look at my original photos and try to manipulate them so that the parallax shows the observed results as well as have the moon only 3000 miles away. Not going to happen well...

I'd just like to the see the math they used to make their conclusion, especially when their wording is a bit confusing about said math.  I don't have a lot of reason to trust two random guys on the internet. 

I'm not trying to say they are part of the conspiracy or anything.  Its just I'd like the actual data rather than a picture of the moon and the end result.

True, but we could do it, you know. Want to try it? Two locations, clear moon, no telescope required, only the ability to tell the angle, even roughly, would give us a ballpark figure.

Bumped for new answers from new people, and perhaps some old ones as well.