Why do we always see the same face of the moon?

In FE theory, when the moon is high in the sky we are looking at its underside.  As it moves in its orbit, gets far away, and approaches the horizon, we would now be looking at its side and its appearance should be different.  But that is not what we observe; we always seem to see the same face of the moon no matter where it is in the sky.  How is this explained?

In FE theory, when the moon is high in the sky we are looking at its underside.  As it moves in its orbit, gets far away, and approaches the horizon, we would now be looking at its side and its appearance should be different.  But that is not what we observe; we always seem to see the same face of the moon no matter where it is in the sky.  How is this explained?

BUMP.  Great question.  -Only from FEers who believe the moon it spherical (Tom, )

The moon is a globe.

Let's hear an explanation Tom.  I'm a bit clueless on how my question could be resolved.

Yup, if the earth was flat, people would be able to see all parts of the moon. Sorry FE's

Wish I had thought of this question first...

Good point by the way.  Excellent challenging point, I'm going to take a moment to add onto it:

Assuming the moon is spherical, then the face that we see would change as it moves through the night sky.

Assuming the moon were a disk, like I've heard some FEers argue, then we'd notice the circle of the moon slowly becoming an oval as it moved away from us, until it simply blinked out of view.

BUMP.  Great question.  -Only from FEers who believe the moon it spherical (Tom, )

Hell, I'd like to hear a globularist explanation if that's alright??

Quote from: Moon squirter on February 29, 2008, 08:03:25 AM

BUMP.  Great question.  -Only from FEers who believe the moon it spherical (Tom, )

Hell, I'd like to hear a globularist explanation if that's alright??

It's quite simple actually.  The Moon takes the same amount of time to rotate once as it does to revolve once around the Earth.  When you think about it, it's apparent that the same side of the moon will always be facing us.

For an explanation as to why the Moon's rotation rate happens to match its revolution rate, look up tidal locking.

I still have yet to hear a plausible explanation for this glaring hole in standard FE theory.  Ideas anyone?

Bumpity bump!

Another valid explanation for a Geosynchronous Lunar Orbit is that the moon is the result of a mars sized object impacting earth 4 billion years ago. The jettisoned debris coalesced into our modern moon. Obviously this matter would maintain the same rotational speed as the earth, in it's own newfound orbit, as it coalesced, due to inertia.

Hell, I'd like to hear a globularist explanation if that's alright??

The fact that the moon does not actually physically move away, the Earth just rotates it out of view and Tidal Locking.

Whats FE explanation?¿?

(P.S; How many bumps does it take for RE to win exactly? )

We always see the same face to the moon because the moon hits the horizon line before it has had a chance to turn any significant degree.

We see a very limited region of the sky, which is why the constellations change when you travel North or South.

No, thats wrong Tom.

If this is the moon
         O
and it travels in a circle around the earth, like you say, then no matter where it is, people on the left of the moon would see one side, people on the right would see another, people in front would see another and people behind would see another side.

P = Person
O = Moon

                                       
                                       P
                                  P   O   P
                                       P

No, thats wrong Tom.

If this is the moon
         O
and it travels in a circle around the earth, like you say, then no matter where it is, people on the left of the moon would see one side, people on the right would see another, people in front would see another and people behind would see another side.

P = Person
O = Moon

                                       
                                       P
                                  P   O   P
                                       P

That assessment is incorrect, because the moon hits the horizon line after receding 6,000 miles. This is not enough time for the moon to turn any significant degree. The moon and sun are only seen when they are within 6,000 miles of the observer.

It would be impossible to see celestial bodies over the other side of the earth because then it would be possible to see the sun at midnight. Day and night could not exist.

That assessment is incorrect, because the moon hits the horizon line after receding 6,000 miles. This is not enough time for the moon to turn any significant degree. The moon and sun are only seen when they are within 6,000 miles of the observer.

Okay, Tom, let's do the math.  Let's say that we have three observers.  They lie in a straight line with 3000 miles in between them.  The full moon is directly overhead the middle observer.  All three observers can see the moon by your estimate.  Assuming the moon is about 3000 miles overhead, the left and right observers should see the moon at about 45 degrees above the horizon.  The middle observer will see the complete underside of the moon.  The left and right observers' views of the moon will be shifted by 45 degrees. So, the left and right observers should be able to detect a 45 degree segment of the moon that is not visible by the middle observer.  (That's a full 25% difference from what the middle observer is able to see.)  That is very significant and certainly detectable.

I have a better question. If the distance through the atmosphere is what obscures and object, why would something moving farther away through space affect whether you can see it or not?

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on March 02, 2008, 06:16:28 PM

No, thats wrong Tom.

If this is the moon
         O
and it travels in a circle around the earth, like you say, then no matter where it is, people on the left of the moon would see one side, people on the right would see another, people in front would see another and people behind would see another side.

P = Person
O = Moon

                                       
                                       P
                                  P   O   P
                                       P

That assessment is incorrect, because the moon hits the horizon line after receding 6,000 miles. This is not enough time for the moon to turn any significant degree. The moon and sun are only seen when they are within 6,000 miles of the observer.

It would be impossible to see celestial bodies over the other side of the earth because then it would be possible to see the sun at midnight. Day and night could not exist.

You don't seem to understand what I am saying, Tom.

If I was just say, 3000 miles east of the moon, I would see one side, and if I had a friend 3000 miles away from the moon on the west side, then we would both be viewing different sides of the moon.


EDIT: Just realized jdoe said almost the same thing!

Okay, Tom, let's do the math.  Let's say that we have three observers.  They lie in a straight line with 3000 miles in between them.  The full moon is directly overhead the middle observer.  All three observers can see the moon by your estimate.  Assuming the moon is about 3000 miles overhead, the left and right observers should see the moon at about 45 degrees above the horizon.  The middle observer will see the complete underside of the moon.  The left and right observers' views of the moon will be shifted by 45 degrees. So, the left and right observers should be able to detect a 45 degree segment of the moon that is not visible by the middle observer.  (That's a full 25% difference from what the middle observer is able to see.)  That is very significant and certainly detectable.

BUMP:


-Left and Right observers could be the same observer but at different times, e.g. 24h/4 = 6 hours apart.

We do not see other parts of the moon because the moon is at such a height that we are always looking at its underside, even when it is 6,000 horizontal miles away.

We do not see other parts of the moon because the moon is at such a height that we are always looking at its underside, even when it is 6,000 horizontal miles away.

So you admit the Moon must be much higher than 3000 miles?  If that is the case, it destroys your theory on how the moon disappears under the horizon.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2008, 12:35:56 PM

We do not see other parts of the moon because the moon is at such a height that we are always looking at its underside, even when it is 6,000 horizontal miles away.

So you admit the Moon must be much higher than 3000 miles?  If that is the case, it destroys your theory on how the moon disappears under the horizon.

He meant 6,000 miles away on the X axis, not Y.  Doesn't really matter.  There are so many holes in the theories that deal with the moon it really negates anything they say. 

Quote from: jdoe on March 03, 2008, 12:51:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2008, 12:35:56 PM

We do not see other parts of the moon because the moon is at such a height that we are always looking at its underside, even when it is 6,000 horizontal miles away.

So you admit the Moon must be much higher than 3000 miles?  If that is the case, it destroys your theory on how the moon disappears under the horizon.

He ment 6,000 miles away on the X axis, not Y.  Doesn't really matter.  There are so many whole in the theories that deal with the moon it really negates anythign they say. 

So many whole what?

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2008, 01:02:54 PM

Quote from: jdoe on March 03, 2008, 12:51:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2008, 12:35:56 PM

We do not see other parts of the moon because the moon is at such a height that we are always looking at its underside, even when it is 6,000 horizontal miles away.

So you admit the Moon must be much higher than 3000 miles?  If that is the case, it destroys your theory on how the moon disappears under the horizon.

He ment 6,000 miles away on the X axis, not Y.  Doesn't really matter.  There are so many whole in the theories that deal with the moon it really negates anythign they say. 

So many whole what?

You missed the other errors. 

We do not see other parts of the moon because the moon is at such a height that we are always looking at its underside, even when it is 6,000 horizontal miles away.

OK, lets do the math:

tan^-1 (6000 / 3000) = 64.4 degrees from the vertical.

So to the observer, the moon's surface will have effectively rotated by 63.4 degress compared to its overhead position.

Observations do not agree with this.  The trig is correct, therefore the theory is wrong.

Quote from: Username on March 03, 2008, 01:04:33 PM

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2008, 01:02:54 PM

Quote from: jdoe on March 03, 2008, 12:51:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2008, 12:35:56 PM

We do not see other parts of the moon because the moon is at such a height that we are always looking at its underside, even when it is 6,000 horizontal miles away.

So you admit the Moon must be much higher than 3000 miles?  If that is the case, it destroys your theory on how the moon disappears under the horizon.

He ment 6,000 miles away on the X axis, not Y.  Doesn't really matter.  There are so many whole in the theories that deal with the moon it really negates anythign they say. 

So many whole what?

You missed the other errors. 

No, I didn't.  That was the only one of note.

Quote from: jdoe on March 02, 2008, 06:58:31 PM

Okay, Tom, let's do the math.  Let's say that we have three observers.  They lie in a straight line with 3000 miles in between them.  The full moon is directly overhead the middle observer.  All three observers can see the moon by your estimate.  Assuming the moon is about 3000 miles overhead, the left and right observers should see the moon at about 45 degrees above the horizon.  The middle observer will see the complete underside of the moon.  The left and right observers' views of the moon will be shifted by 45 degrees. So, the left and right observers should be able to detect a 45 degree segment of the moon that is not visible by the middle observer.  (That's a full 25% difference from what the middle observer is able to see.)  That is very significant and certainly detectable.

BUMP:


-Left and Right observers could be the same observer but at different times, e.g. 24h/4 = 6 hours apart.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2008, 12:35:56 PM

We do not see other parts of the moon because the moon is at such a height that we are always looking at its underside, even when it is 6,000 horizontal miles away.

OK, lets do the math:

tan^-1 (6000 / 3000) = 64.4 degrees from the vertical.

So to the observer, the moon's surface will have effectively rotated by 63.4 degress compared to its overhead position.

Observations do not agree with this.  The trig is correct, therefore the theory is wrong.

Tom, how do you resolve these issues?

He doesn't. It just is.... Seriously, my guess, is that no-one will touch this thread.

*Touches the thread... and how!*

He doesn't. It just is.... Seriously, my guess, is that no-one will touch this thread.

Well, my theory doesn't have this issue, so I've kept out of it.

Quote from: fshy94 on March 05, 2008, 11:02:56 AM

He doesn't. It just is.... Seriously, my guess, is that no-one will touch this thread.

Well, my theory doesn't have this issue, so I've kept out of it.

Really?  How does it work?

It almost freaks me out how far Tom will bend reality to maintain his narrow-minded views.