Full moon

  • 66 Replies
  • 7165 Views
Full moon
« on: May 11, 2013, 03:34:26 PM »
Thork came with the fundamental error, that it is impossible that there could be a full moon with a round earth.

Let's write down the real-world observations first. We see a full moon. We also see the moon crescent.

Evidence provided by Thork




The same problem is there with a disc, so these images proof nothing. Instead the images of the round earth are incorrect. The size of the sun is way too small. And the sun is much further away than is shown in these images.

What happens when you put the sun in the correct size and distance? Some point behind the earth, the sun rays cross each other. So no matter whether you are behind the earth, if you are far enough away you will see the sun again. As you can see in this basic paint image
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 06:37:34 AM by Lolflatdisc »
Hello!

Re: Full moon
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2013, 07:21:42 PM »
Sounds like Thork made a good point.

Re: Full moon
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2013, 07:22:54 PM »
His problem is that he believes that if the RET for lunar eclipses is correct, then every time the earth is at a full moon the light should be blocked from the earth.
Oh and is that to scale?
Why use evidence
Ok

?

Thork

Re: Full moon
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2013, 09:59:56 PM »
I am correct. A full moon is geometrically impossible with the round earth model.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Full moon
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2013, 10:56:41 PM »
I am correct. A full moon is geometrically impossible with the round earth model.

A perfect full moon maybe, but one that looks full to an observer on earth? Easy. Just review this beautiful description from another thread:

Quote from: AnonConda
...considering the moon at an incline of 5 at a distance of 384,400km the difference in angular subtense is minuscule. The dark portion of the moon now viewable is indeed over 150km, but it's at the edge of a sphere, not dead on. So we can use this distance and the radius of the moon to find what we are actually looking at; the sagitta, which is about 6.6km providing a good approximation. Latitude of the observer does have a slight affect; the final calculations of the angle subtended by this dark part varies between  0.003 and 0.0001 (depending on if you are at Earth's south or north pole). The human eye has a threshold of about 0.01. Sorry, there is literally no discernible difference.

I can provide diagrams and maths if you are having trouble understanding this very simple concept that 5 inclination does not subtend an additional 5 to the observer, indeed the moon itself only subtends about 0.52.

Essentially, the not-quite-perfectly-full moon that we see is indistinguishable from a perfectly-full moon.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Full moon
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2013, 11:01:38 PM »
I am correct. A full moon is geometrically impossible with the round earth model.

A perfect geometrical full moon isn't. But also remember, that it's also impossible to even see a full hemisphere of the moon. That's also geometrically impossible, unless your eyes are larger than the moon.

So a person can see a "full" moon, he doesn't see the whole hemisphere, the very tiny shadow isn't in his line of sight, and he perceives the moon as full.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Full moon
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2013, 02:16:23 AM »
I think the OP got technicality-trolled...
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Full moon
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2013, 03:36:40 AM »
In fact the appearance of the Moon is one of the easiest verifications you can have of the true nature of the Moon's orbit around the Earth.

Among many other details that anyone can see, one is especially relevant to this discussion: most of the time the fullest Moon is not quite full but a thin rim is missing either around the Northern or Southern part of the Moon. This is totally different from the usual appearance, where the missing part is from the Eastern or Western sides of the Moon.

The Moon cycles about 2 times a year from about a 5 degree misalignment to an almost perfect alignment and back again. When the misalignment is at its maximum you can see that the Moon never quite reaches a perfect full appearance and you never have lunar eclipses (or solar eclipses, for that matter). When the misalignment reaches its minimum you can see that the Moon gets as full as you can discern with the naked eye and sometimes you get lunar eclipses.

This is totally in sync with the model of Earth orbiting the Sun and the Moon orbiting the Earth on a plane that is about 5 degrees inclined with respect to the plane of the Earth's orbit (the Ecliptic). But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.

?

Thork

Re: Full moon
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2013, 03:38:36 AM »
But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.
Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Full moon
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2013, 04:21:34 AM »
But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.
Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Now that's funny!  ;D

Seriously though, I've been reading ENaG, and I don't think I've ever seen such a fantastic compilation of fundamental mistakes and confirmation bias in my life. There are a few places where Rowbotham pretty much says "Yes, this very precise and carefully made measurement shows curvature, therefore it must be wrong (even though I was able to repeat it exactly, with the exact same results), and the extremely accurate instruments used must be far less accurate than they were designed to be, because I'm sure the earth is flat."
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Full moon
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2013, 05:26:04 AM »
everyone knows that when the luminous shrimplike bacteria are in full unision, the moon is full.

Re: Full moon
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2013, 08:28:26 AM »
I am correct. A full moon is geometrically impossible with the round earth model.

A perfect full moon maybe, but one that looks full to an observer on earth? Easy. Just review this beautiful description from another thread:

Quote from: AnonConda
...considering the moon at an incline of 5 at a distance of 384,400km the difference in angular subtense is minuscule. The dark portion of the moon now viewable is indeed over 150km, but it's at the edge of a sphere, not dead on. So we can use this distance and the radius of the moon to find what we are actually looking at; the sagitta, which is about 6.6km providing a good approximation. Latitude of the observer does have a slight affect; the final calculations of the angle subtended by this dark part varies between  0.003 and 0.0001 (depending on if you are at Earth's south or north pole). The human eye has a threshold of about 0.01. Sorry, there is literally no discernible difference.

I can provide diagrams and maths if you are having trouble understanding this very simple concept that 5 inclination does not subtend an additional 5 to the observer, indeed the moon itself only subtends about 0.52.

Essentially, the not-quite-perfectly-full moon that we see is indistinguishable from a perfectly-full moon.
Indeed, with the naked eye it is indistinguishable. As you said before in the other thread, a decent telescope may help you resolve an image showing a slight bit of shadow compared to a good circle. This could depend on atmospheric conditions, telescope power, latitude and lunar inclination.

At the end of the day, for the Zetitic who just wants to look at the full moon, there is no reason to expect to see a noticeable shadow due to the 5 inclination.

Re: Full moon
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2013, 08:57:37 AM »
But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.
Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Please read a physics book.
Hello!

?

Thork

Re: Full moon
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2013, 08:58:59 AM »
But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.
Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Please read a physics book.
Earth Not a Globe is a physics book.

Re: Full moon
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2013, 09:13:13 AM »
But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.
Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Please read a physics book.
Earth Not a Globe is a physics book.

Nope, it does not hold any proof.  Rowbotham never adequately explains his alternative astronomy.

To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).

Same what you do Thork...
Hello!

Re: Full moon
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2013, 09:42:13 AM »
This has all been done before.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54882.60.html

2/3 of the way down the page Garygreen posted a scale diagram.

Since it's orbital plane is not exactly in line with the Earth and sun and the Earth is not always directly between the sun and moon every single time the moon is 'full' (when it is we get a lunar eclipse- wow), and since the sun is bigger than the moon and therefore illuminates slightly over 50% (I don't know the exact amount), I'd say it's 'full'.

Is it 100% illuminated or 99.999%?  I don't know.

Would it make you feel better Thork if the entire world adopted the name "99 percent moon" instead of "full moon"?

Perhaps also "Not quite flat but flat enough that without the use of extremely precision instruments you'll think it's flat glass"

Maybe the world should have also adopted an 8 day week with the discovery of Uranus, a 9 day week later with the discovery of Neptune, and then a 10 week with the discovery of Pluto, and then mostly recently have gone back to a 9 day week with the downgrading of Pluto to 'dwarf planet'.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Full moon
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2013, 01:22:35 PM »
I have to agree with Thork on this particular note.  It appears to me that after witnessing statements that the orbit of the moon is very stable; I have come to the conclusion that the lunar phases are not adequately explained by RET.  That earth covers the entire moon because it is much large in size.  use a ping pong ball and a tennis ball with a flash light.  Purrrrrrrrfect...

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Full moon
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2013, 02:04:09 PM »
everyone knows that when the luminous shrimplike bacteria are in full unision, the moon is full.

I wanted to say that the moon possesses an aura of light and that it exudes this light with animist consciousness.  It lives and breathes day by day.  Magic...

Re: Full moon
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2013, 03:51:07 PM »
I have to agree with Thork on this particular note.  It appears to me that after witnessing statements that the orbit of the moon is very stable; I have come to the conclusion that the lunar phases are not adequately explained by RET.  That earth covers the entire moon because it is much large in size.  use a ping pong ball and a tennis ball with a flash light.  Purrrrrrrrfect...

I don't think you have a flashlight big enough that it represents the sun to the scale of the earth, if the earth were the size of a tennis ball.

Your flashlight has to have a diameter about 100 times larger than the tennis ball.
Hello!

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Full moon
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2013, 04:26:25 PM »
But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.
Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.
I have not seen any explanation of the whole changing appearance of the Moon throughout the lunar cycle. Rowbotham may have explained (and done a pretty awful job at that) a few of the known features of the Moon's cycle. But not even him, with his wild imagination and lack of evidence, has done a close to complete job.

On the other hand, I have seen several times how the waxing Moon has a shadow on its Eastern or Western side (as seen by me, who lives near the Equator) and the shadow gets thinner and thinner and then moves towards the Southern or Northern side of the Moon, after which the Moon starts to wane. All of this is clearly repeatable with the famous "tennis ball and lantern" analogies and the current model of our Solar System.

Saying something about the phases of the Moon is not the same as explaining them.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Full moon
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2013, 05:32:55 AM »
I have to agree with Thork on this particular note.  It appears to me that after witnessing statements that the orbit of the moon is very stable; I have come to the conclusion that the lunar phases are not adequately explained by RET.  That earth covers the entire moon because it is much large in size.  use a ping pong ball and a tennis ball with a flash light.  Purrrrrrrrfect...

I don't think you have a flashlight big enough that it represents the sun to the scale of the earth, if the earth were the size of a tennis ball.

Your flashlight has to have a diameter about 100 times larger than the tennis ball.

Use a few lanterns put together.  That is enough light...

Re: Full moon
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2013, 06:47:39 AM »
The way a full moon 'works' in RET, I've found, is fairly straightforward to get your head around when you start looking at planes of orbit in relation to the moon and the Earth. It also helps to understand how phases of the moon work generally, and what's going on when we see the different phases of the moon.

Just to clear the misconception; the phases of the moon are not caused by the Earth's shadow. (Apologies for this potentially patronising statement, but it is a very common misconception that I come across when talking about the moon with peers.)

The principle of why we are able to see a full moon is the same as why we don't have a solar eclipse every time the phase of the moon is new, (every 29.5 days.) If the moon orbited Earth on the same plane (the ecliptic) then we would indeed observe two eclipses per month. Every two weeks in fact, at both the new and full phases of the moon. This is where the confusion seems to have arisen with the impossibility of observing a full moon with those that refute the RET.

As it is, the moon's orbit is inclined to Earth's by about 5 degrees. Twice a month, the moon intersects the Earth's orbital plane at two points called nodes. If the moon is going from south to north in its orbit, then it's an ascending node. If it's going from north to south, then it's a descending node. Eclipses happen when the full or new moon is close enough to one of these nodes; when the moon and Earths orbital planes intersect. Otherwise the shadow from the Earth / Moon does not fall upon the Moon / Earth.

I say "close enough to the nodes", because we can actually observe more eclipses than just the two when the nodes intersect entirely, which account for partial eclipses. There are partial and total eclipses, and they are very predictable and well worth seeking out; some are truly stunning.

Ultimately, phases of the moon (and eclipses for that matter) can, and do, work when using a round Earth model; but obviously agreeing with the conclusions requires belief of orbital planes, a stationary sun, and of course a spherical Earth.

You're only as good as your last simile.

Re: Full moon
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2013, 12:10:49 PM »
I made a roughly to-scale picture of the deal.

Here's the link, you may want to download it to view more easily (embedding it would be crazy): http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8215/solarb.png

The Earth-Sun distance is 30,000 px. I made the Sun's diameter 300px, it's fair enough. The Earth is in blue, it's barely more than 2px. The Moon would be less than 1px. The average distance between the Earth and Moon is 75px (scaled after the Sun's diameter).

The white line is the ecliptic plane's cross section near the Earth-Moon system. The two gray arcs are roughly where the Moon is situated: the left arc is when it's a full moon, and the right arc is when there's a new moon. And the red dot on the left arc is Earth's umbra. As you can see, there's plenty of places on the arc for the Moon to be for it to not be in Earth's umbra. With a 5 degree inclination of the orbit with the ecliptic, the Moon can be up to 7-8px above or below the ecliptic. Compare that to Earth's umbra of only 2px. As the year passes, the monthly new moon's position shifts up and down on that arc, passing through Earth's umbra twice a year. Conversely, there's two lunar eclipses per year. I hope this is educational.

Just to clear the misconception; the phases of the moon are not caused by the Earth's shadow. (Apologies for this potentially patronising statement, but it is a very common misconception that I come across when talking about the moon with peers.)

I once met a physics teacher in a school who actually thought the phases of the moon were caused by the Earth's shadow. I nearly stuck forks in my eyes.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 12:30:15 PM by icanbeanything »

Re: Full moon
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2013, 12:44:28 PM »
Wonderful, thank you icanbeanything, that certainly aids the explanation!

In regards to the physics teacher; that is certainly most unsettling, but such a common misconception, that I find myself unsurprised.

In conclusion, a full moon, a new moon and solar / lunar eclipses of varying degree do work demonstrably on the currently understood Round Earth Theory. Obviously, this only applies if making calculations that assume the Earth and other celestial bodies are as they are in aforementioned RET.
You're only as good as your last simile.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Full moon
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2013, 04:28:28 PM »
I can't believe I just read 2 pages of people actually trying to argue that the RET explanation of moon phases doesn't work. I need to get out of here. Thork, feel free to delete my profile and ban me for life.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Full moon
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2013, 04:59:47 PM »
I can't believe I just read 2 pages of people actually trying to argue that the RET explanation of moon phases doesn't work. I need to get out of here. Thork, feel free to delete my profile and ban me for life.

It's not that easy mate. Thork, as much as he comports himself to the contrary, does not wield much power.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Full moon
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2013, 05:26:11 PM »
I can't believe I just read 2 pages of people actually trying to argue that the RET explanation of moon phases doesn't work. I need to get out of here. Thork, feel free to delete my profile and ban me for life.

It's not that easy mate. Thork, as much as he comports himself to the contrary, does not wield much power.

Well he does repeatedly delete my posts: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58634.0.html#.UZGEfMpXtv4
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Full moon
« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2013, 05:28:48 PM »
I can't believe I just read 2 pages of people actually trying to argue that the RET explanation of moon phases doesn't work. I need to get out of here. Thork, feel free to delete my profile and ban me for life.

It's not that easy mate. Thork, as much as he comports himself to the contrary, does not wield much power.

Well he does repeatedly delete my posts: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58634.0.html#.UZGEfMpXtv4

That's just some sort of twisted limbo you are stuck in until you PO someone important.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Full moon
« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2013, 05:41:16 PM »
Well I can't think of what else I can do. I've repeatedly called Tom Bishop a disgrace, pretty much broke True Myth, conclusively showed that the FET model of the sun doesn't work, and nowadays I pretty much just spam the forum with derogatory one-liners. Maybe this is how hoppy came to be?

Say what you will about these people but they sure know how to take it on the chin.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Full moon
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2013, 07:56:39 PM »
I haven't really caught you doing anything that breaks the rules.  I can warn you, if you like.  :-\
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?