The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon

  • 38 Replies
  • 3193 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« on: September 18, 2016, 07:16:05 PM »
When I made the thread The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun it received little response, ever though it completely disproves the path of the sun on the flat earth model.

Well, the near constant size of the moon does the same, so we'll try again! After all we are told
"If at first you don't succeed, try again, after that, don't be a damn fool, give up!"

The sun is not so easy to photograph without the correct filters, but the moon is quite easy to photograph.

I have taken numerous photos and all show the moon at almost the same size. It must be realised that the apparent size of the moon does change significantly during the month as the moon's orbit is elliptical.

The first photo is a bit of an odd man as the camera settings were a little different and while it still shown as 1600 mm in the EXIF information, I suspect it might be 1774 mm (the next step).
The following photos show the moon at quite different altitudes:


(0) Date: May 22, 2016 at 17:43 EAST
Moon at Alt 2.3,  Az 107.5, size  0.56
   

(1) Date: May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST
Moon at Alt 6.3, Az 107.7,  size  0.52
   

(2) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:16 EAST
Moon at Alt 14.5, Az 103.6,  size  0.52
   


(3) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST
Moon at Alt 23.1, Az  99.6,  size  0.52
   

(4) Date: May 25, 2016 at 06:46 EAST
Moon at Alt 26.5, Az  262.1,  size  0.50
   

(5) Date: May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST
Moon at Alt 37.8, Az  92.7,  size  0.52
   


(6)Date: June 21, 2016 at 23:12  EAST
Strawberry Moon+1 at Alt 67.1, Azm 70.8, size 0.53
   

(7) Date: May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST
Moon at Alt 71.5, Azm 0.1,  size  0.52
   

(8)Date: June 20, 2016 at 23:38 EAST
Strawberry Full Moon - at Alt 80.2, Azm 23.4, size  0.52


I suppose I did not need to show so many photos, but some are completely unable to accept the most solid evidence!

The moon stays (almost) the same size from rising (well 2.3) to virtually overhead (at an Altitude of 80.2).

Any explanations as to how this might be possible with the flat earth model of the moon's motion?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2017, 11:30:02 PM by rabinoz »

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16810
  • Or should I?
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2016, 08:28:18 PM »
I'm expecting very similar results to your equally well presented thread on the angular size of the sun.

Good on you for putting in the time and effort.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2016, 08:48:20 PM »
I'm expecting very similar results to your equally well presented thread on the angular size of the sun.

Good on you for putting in the time and effort.
I also expect the same "Ho hum, so what!" But, thanks.

Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2016, 07:44:27 AM »
They can't explain it, so you will probably just get jroa trolling
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2016, 07:58:18 AM »
One guy on youtube claimed that the fact we see the same phase of the Moon, also the Moon keeps it's size and velocity across the sky is due to...

The perspective.

Don't ask me how does it work. The guy didn't bother with explaination.

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2016, 01:37:20 AM »
I'm expecting very similar results to your equally well presented thread on the angular size of the sun.

Good on you for putting in the time and effort.

There's no dispute about it, evidence means nothing to a fully indoctrinated flat earthed.
Take a  look at Conclusive prove that the earth is not flat! on: September 20, 2016, 06:37:30 PM .

More "armoplanic lensing", "perspective" and "known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere" I suppose.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2016, 09:42:30 AM »
You've measured a 12% variance within the visible distances, I don't see how this could possibly be proof of a round earth.

To actually test this, you should measure the size of the moon when it is both inside and outside of visible ranges.

Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2016, 01:39:13 PM »
You've measured a 12% variance within the visible distances, I don't see how this could possibly be proof of a round earth.

To actually test this, you should measure the size of the moon when it is both inside and outside of visible ranges.

The majority of the variance only occurs right next to the horizon, where we would expect refraction to be strongest. If the moon were indeed only 3000 miles high with an orbit of roughly 4000 miles, we would expect the variance to be much higher than that.

And how on earth does one measure the size of the moon when it is "outside of visible range"?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2016, 01:40:04 PM »
You've measured a 12% variance within the visible distances, I don't see how this could possibly be proof of a round earth.

To actually test this, you should measure the size of the moon when it is both inside and outside of visible ranges.

The majority of the variance only occurs right next to the horizon, where we would expect refraction to be strongest. If the moon were indeed only 3000 miles high with an orbit of roughly 4000 miles, we would expect the variance to be much higher than that.

And how on earth does one measure the size of the moon when it is "outside of visible range"?

By using invisible light

Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2016, 01:47:31 PM »
You've measured a 12% variance within the visible distances, I don't see how this could possibly be proof of a round earth.

To actually test this, you should measure the size of the moon when it is both inside and outside of visible ranges.

The majority of the variance only occurs right next to the horizon, where we would expect refraction to be strongest. If the moon were indeed only 3000 miles high with an orbit of roughly 4000 miles, we would expect the variance to be much higher than that.

And how on earth does one measure the size of the moon when it is "outside of visible range"?

By using invisible light

Ok. I am fairly confident that the sun is the same size, and disappears at the same time in infrared/UV as it does in visible light. I haven't tested it myself, because it sounds like a waste of time. If you don't think so, perhaps you can do that test yourself?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2016, 01:54:22 PM »
You've measured a 12% variance within the visible distances, I don't see how this could possibly be proof of a round earth.

To actually test this, you should measure the size of the moon when it is both inside and outside of visible ranges.

The majority of the variance only occurs right next to the horizon, where we would expect refraction to be strongest. If the moon were indeed only 3000 miles high with an orbit of roughly 4000 miles, we would expect the variance to be much higher than that.

And how on earth does one measure the size of the moon when it is "outside of visible range"?

By using invisible light

Ok. I am fairly confident that the sun is the same size, and disappears at the same time in infrared/UV as it does in visible light. I haven't tested it myself, because it sounds like a waste of time. If you don't think so, perhaps you can do that test yourself?

That has been done, many many many times. I've even linked you one such study. I think that wraps up this thread quite tidy.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!!

Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2016, 02:24:13 PM »
You've measured a 12% variance within the visible distances, I don't see how this could possibly be proof of a round earth.

To actually test this, you should measure the size of the moon when it is both inside and outside of visible ranges.

The majority of the variance only occurs right next to the horizon, where we would expect refraction to be strongest. If the moon were indeed only 3000 miles high with an orbit of roughly 4000 miles, we would expect the variance to be much higher than that.

And how on earth does one measure the size of the moon when it is "outside of visible range"?

By using invisible light

Ok. I am fairly confident that the sun is the same size, and disappears at the same time in infrared/UV as it does in visible light. I haven't tested it myself, because it sounds like a waste of time. If you don't think so, perhaps you can do that test yourself?

That has been done, many many many times. I've even linked you one such study. I think that wraps up this thread quite tidy.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!!

Ah yes, the study of neutrinos coming from the earth's mantle?

Poe's law is a doozy...

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2016, 02:30:04 PM »
Please do not respond to resolved threads.

Thanks!

*

sokarul

  • 16786
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2016, 02:34:52 PM »
Please do not respond to resolved threads.

Thanks!
After all the years you are still just a dumb baby.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2016, 03:14:24 PM »
You've measured a 12% variance within the visible distances, I don't see how this could possibly be proof of a round earth.

To actually test this, you should measure the size of the moon when it is both inside and outside of visible ranges.
  • I don't believe I ever claimed that "this could possibly be proof of a round earth", It's  just one more massive nail in the coffin of the flat earth.

  • On the flat earth the distance from an observer to the moon can vary from about 5,000 km up to over 20,000 km. That would cause a factor of four change in the apparent size of the moon.
We do not see any factor of four change in the apparent size of the moon - even "the Wiki" has no explanation why we do not. We do have jroa''s " ::) atmoplanic lensing ::)". I've said enough on what I think of that.

Now a 12% or so variation in the moon's apparent size over a month is consistent with the elliptic orbit or the moon.
If you were to photograph a full moon at apogee and perigee (using the same lens),
here's how the two sizes would compare:



Quote
On average, the Moon is about 238,800 miles (384,500 km) from the Earth. However, because of the elliptical shape of the Moon's orbit, the actual distance varies throughout the year, between 225,804 miles (363,396 km) at the perigee and 251,968 miles (405,504 km) at the apogee.
From Time and date,  Lunar Perigee and Apogee


?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2016, 03:18:11 PM »
Do you have a link to jroa's post regarding atmoplanic lensing? As im sure the answer is readily contained there.

Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2016, 04:32:30 PM »
Do you have a link to jroa's post regarding atmoplanic lensing? As im sure the answer is readily contained there.

I don't remember where the post is located, but all it contained was an assertion that "atmoplanic lensing" can explain how the sun/moon sets and/or stays roughly the same size throughout the day. No details or logical reasoning were given.

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2016, 05:00:38 PM »
Do you have a link to jroa's post regarding atmoplanic lensing? As im sure the answer is readily contained there.
;D ;D Oh, I'm sure  ;D ;D
But have you ever heard of magnification from a lens with planar layers?

How many references do you want? "Let me count the ways." (but, please, oh, please do NOT look up where that quote came from!)
I should comment that planar layers can bend light, or even make an object seem a little closer, but not magnify!

And even if jroa's magic magnification were possible, it is highly implausible that it would keep the sun and moon exactly the right sizes to match that expected from the globe model.

But yes, jroa likes his atmoplanic lensing!

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2016, 06:47:56 PM »
Yeah, perfect thanks. Now go read those.

*

sokarul

  • 16786
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2016, 07:21:09 PM »
Why does nothing else show the lensing effect?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2016, 07:41:55 PM »
Why does nothing else show the lensing effect?

Like rainbows or the ISS? I know you're not new her, sukarol.

*

sokarul

  • 16786
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2016, 08:43:47 PM »
Why does nothing else show the lensing effect?

Like rainbows or the ISS? I know you're not new her, sukarol.
yes, like those. So why don't they experience "lensing"?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2016, 09:45:26 PM »
Yeah, perfect thanks. Now go read those.
Of course I've read those and they explain nothing.

Maybe you can explain how plane layers of the  ;) atmoplane  ;) can magnify the moon by about 4 times, when the refractive index of air is only 1.000277.

Not only that, but apart from a little distortion (caused by atmospheric  :P refraction  :P !), the size of the moon varies by a quite predictable amount of around 1.6% from the horizon to overhead - not a factor of FOUR that would be expected on the flat earth.

Jroa''s magic refraction would vary with atmospheric conditions, but the moonn's size does not vary in that way.

Any more guesses?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2016, 04:31:24 PM »
Yeah, perfect thanks. Now go read those.
Of course I've read those and they explain nothing.

Maybe you can explain how plane layers of the  ;) atmoplane  ;) can magnify the moon by about 4 times, when the refractive index of air is only 1.000277.

Not only that, but apart from a little distortion (caused by atmospheric  :P refraction  :P !), the size of the moon varies by a quite predictable amount of around 1.6% from the horizon to overhead - not a factor of FOUR that would be expected on the flat earth.

Jroa''s magic refraction would vary with atmospheric conditions, but the moonn's size does not vary in that way.

Any more guesses?

I stopped reading at the emote. Surely, you can use your words without resorting to pictures.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2016, 07:09:51 PM »
rab thinks it is cute to abuse the formatting features of the forum. 

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2016, 07:24:46 PM »
Ok, I'll tidy it up.

Yeah, perfect thanks. Now go read those.
Of course I've read those and they explain nothing.

Maybe you can explain how plane layers of the atmoplane can magnify the moon by about 4 times, when the refractive index of air is only 1.000277.

Not only that but apart from a little distortion (caused by atmospheric refraction), the size of the moon varies by a quite predictable amount of around 1.6% from the horizon to overhead - not a factor of FOUR that would be expected on the flat earth.

Jroa's refraction would vary with atmospheric conditions, but the moon's size does not vary in that way.


Any more guesses?

By the way, the sun's angular size stays even more constant over a day

And now maybe narcberry can give me some answers in his words.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2016, 07:17:41 PM »
Ok, I'll tidy it up.

Yeah, perfect thanks. Now go read those.
Of course I've read those and they explain nothing.

Maybe you can explain how plane layers of the atmoplane can magnify the moon by about 4 times, when the refractive index of air is only 1.000277.

Not only that but apart from a little distortion (caused by atmospheric refraction), the size of the moon varies by a quite predictable amount of around 1.6% from the horizon to overhead - not a factor of FOUR that would be expected on the flat earth.

Jroa's refraction would vary with atmospheric conditions, but the moon's size does not vary in that way.


Any more guesses?

By the way, the sun's angular size stays even more constant over a day

And now maybe narcberry can give me some answers in his words.

Looked for a question mark, couldn't find one.

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2016, 09:03:20 PM »
Ok, I'll tidy it up.

Yeah, perfect thanks. Now go read those.
Of course I've read those and they explain nothing.

Maybe you can explain how plane layers of the atmoplane can magnify the moon by about 4 times, when the refractive index of air is only 1.000277.

Not only that but apart from a little distortion (caused by atmospheric refraction), the size of the moon varies by a quite predictable amount of around 1.6% from the horizon to overhead - not a factor of FOUR that would be expected on the flat earth.

Jroa's refraction would vary with atmospheric conditions, but the moon's size does not vary in that way.


Any more guesses?

By the way, the sun's angular size stays even more constant over a day

And now maybe narcberry can give me some answers in his words.


Looked for a question mark, couldn't find one.

"Any more guesses?" A question mark looks like "?".

Never answered one before, have you?

« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 02:31:54 AM by rabinoz »

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2016, 04:34:15 PM »

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon
« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2016, 07:46:55 PM »
"Any more guesses?"

Yes
In other words, you don't have the slightest idea how the moon can appear almost exactly the same size for any observer.

This is even though (according to the FE guess) it might be only about 5,000 km away when overhead out to 15,000 km or more away when rising or setting.

What about going with a model that works?

Looks like an obvious VICTORY for the GLOBE EARTH AGAIN!