Super moon

  • 25 Replies
  • 2410 Views
*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Super moon
« on: December 02, 2017, 08:29:42 PM »
How are supermoons predicted in FE reasoning
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2017, 11:04:24 AM »
The movements of the Sun, moon, stars etc is pretty predictable regardless, so long as you keep an eye on the seeming size of the moon and the phases you can calculate when the largest/nearest size coincides with a full moon.

In general you don't really need to know why things work in order to calculate the behaviour of future predictable phenomenon, sure you could do it the long way, but any FEer, REer, concave-Earther, toroidal-Earther, rhombicuboctahedral-earther... with eyes and records could figure it out.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Super moon
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2017, 07:40:02 PM »
Maybe your missing my point.... RE Logic says that the moon orbits in an oval like shape around the Earth.... (actually nothing orbits in a perfect circle, in RE science)

ANYWAYS, supermoons are a combination of being as close to earth as it can be, and also appearing full.

FE does not acknowledge or mention any variations of appeared size due to fluctuations in distance of a lunar cycle. This wold be their moon acting as a Yoyo on a string.  Nor do they acknowledge  (completely) that the moon is illuminated by the Sun.... so, again I ask (and I do appreciate your answer Jane)

Obviously RE science can, so how does FE logic predict SuperMoons? The equations must be different...

Don't forget to show your work!!!
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 07:45:04 PM by RocketSauce »
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Super moon
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2017, 07:48:20 PM »
I just PM'd Iti.... the poster formally known as Itikiam... maybe he knows
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2017, 02:51:25 AM »
Obviously RE science can, so how does FE logic predict SuperMoons? The equations must be different...

Don't forget to show your work!!!
Equations are overkill. Like I said, it's naturally predictable just by observation. Do you need an equation to tell you the Sun will rise, or to predict the phases of the moon? You could do it that way, you just don't need to.
Or are you asking after the FE equivalent of the moon moving closer or further away? That's not particularly clear if so. If you are asking after the mechanism though, I haven't seen this exact question asked before so I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but regardless of whether celestial gears, aether etc is accepted as the explanation of what makes the Sun and moon rotate around the Earth, those things never just provide uniform circular motion. FEers refer to 'tracks' and equivalent that the Sun moves between over the course of the seasons. It's not hard to imagine the analogous for the moon.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2017, 07:01:05 AM »
The movements of the Sun, moon, stars etc is pretty predictable regardless, so long as you keep an eye on the seeming size of the moon and the phases you can calculate when the largest/nearest size coincides with a full moon.

In general you don't really need to know why things work in order to calculate the behaviour of future predictable phenomenon, sure you could do it the long way, but any FEer, REer, concave-Earther, toroidal-Earther, rhombicuboctahedral-earther... with eyes and records could figure it out.
I wonder if people realize how many observations over how long a period of time it would take to figure out some of the more subtle heavenly cycles, like that of the super-moon.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Super moon
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2017, 07:49:12 AM »
In an effort not to make this a "debate"

I would like to swing this back to... Could a FE'r please predict the next, Super Moon, Lunar Eclipse, Solar Eclipse (when and where) without using a RE source?

Please, and thank you
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2017, 08:25:28 AM »
Some FE'ers claim that Saros cycles developed by the ancient Babylonians are quite useful for predicting solar and lunar eclipses and do not rely on any particular earth shape.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Super moon
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2017, 09:32:31 AM »
Some FE'ers claim that Saros cycles developed by the ancient Babylonians are quite useful for predicting solar and lunar eclipses and do not rely on any particular earth shape.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

Luckily that Shill website NASA explained the saros cycle for me a little bit
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2017, 01:19:33 PM »
Some FE'ers claim that Saros cycles developed by the ancient Babylonians are quite useful for predicting solar and lunar eclipses and do not rely on any particular earth shape.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

Luckily that Shill website NASA explained the saros cycle for me a little bit
Irrelevant.  The Saros cycles were developed long before NASA was a twinkle in Eisenhower's eye.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Super moon
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2017, 02:59:42 PM »
The sun does not rotate around the earth. Any kind of rudimentary observations will tell you it is so. No calculations required.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2017, 03:03:11 PM »
The movements of the Sun, moon, stars etc is pretty predictable regardless, so long as you keep an eye on the seeming size of the moon and the phases you can calculate when the largest/nearest size coincides with a full moon.

In general you don't really need to know why things work in order to calculate the behaviour of future predictable phenomenon, sure you could do it the long way, but any FEer, REer, concave-Earther, toroidal-Earther, rhombicuboctahedral-earther... with eyes and records could figure it out.
I wonder if people realize how many observations over how long a period of time it would take to figure out some of the more subtle heavenly cycles, like that of the super-moon.

I'm fairly sure you'd just need two, more or less, take note of how long a lunar month is, and take note of how long it takes to go back and forth, then all you need is the date of one supermoon and it's pretty trivial to see when they'd sync up again.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2017, 03:20:42 PM »
The movements of the Sun, moon, stars etc is pretty predictable regardless, so long as you keep an eye on the seeming size of the moon and the phases you can calculate when the largest/nearest size coincides with a full moon.

In general you don't really need to know why things work in order to calculate the behaviour of future predictable phenomenon, sure you could do it the long way, but any FEer, REer, concave-Earther, toroidal-Earther, rhombicuboctahedral-earther... with eyes and records could figure it out.
I wonder if people realize how many observations over how long a period of time it would take to figure out some of the more subtle heavenly cycles, like that of the super-moon.

I'm fairly sure you'd just need two, more or less, take note of how long a lunar month is, and take note of how long it takes to go back and forth, then all you need is the date of one supermoon and it's pretty trivial to see when they'd sync up again.
Well, it might also help to define the characteristics of a supermoon.  How much bigger must the supermoon appear than a regular full moon?  How do you compare the size of the moon from full moon to full moon to figure out which is bigger?  How do you know when the full moon is a big as it can get?  If the earth is flat, then why are there differences in the size of the full moon in the first place?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 03:23:30 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2017, 03:26:37 PM »
Well, it might also help to define the characteristics of a supermoon.  How much bigger must the supermoon appear than a regular full moon?  How do you compare the size of the moon from full moon to full moon to figure out which is bigger?  How do you know when the full moon is a big as it can get?  If the earth is flat, then why are there differences in the size of the full moon in the first place?
By the time you have the means to test the supermoon, you have the means to calculate it. That's all that really matters here.
Already loosely gone over some potential mechanisms.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2017, 04:00:42 PM »
Well, it might also help to define the characteristics of a supermoon.  How much bigger must the supermoon appear than a regular full moon?  How do you compare the size of the moon from full moon to full moon to figure out which is bigger?  How do you know when the full moon is a big as it can get?  If the earth is flat, then why are there differences in the size of the full moon in the first place?
By the time you have the means to test the supermoon, you have the means to calculate it. That's all that really matters here.
Already loosely gone over some potential mechanisms.
And as I asked before, how long do you suppose that would take to figure all that out?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2017, 04:05:57 PM »
Well, it might also help to define the characteristics of a supermoon.  How much bigger must the supermoon appear than a regular full moon?  How do you compare the size of the moon from full moon to full moon to figure out which is bigger?  How do you know when the full moon is a big as it can get?  If the earth is flat, then why are there differences in the size of the full moon in the first place?
By the time you have the means to test the supermoon, you have the means to calculate it. That's all that really matters here.
Already loosely gone over some potential mechanisms.
And as I asked before, how long do you suppose that would take to figure all that out?
When did they have the results to measure when a supermoon occurred? if you're smart, it'd probably just take one period of varying distance to make a prediction from that.

It's worth pointing out that I doubt the existence of the supermoon was proven and confirmed from RET, I expect it was spotted long before they had the predictive explanation.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2017, 04:10:33 PM »
It's worth pointing out that I doubt the existence of the supermoon was proven and confirmed from RET, I expect it was spotted long before they had the predictive explanation.

As it turns out:
Supermoon is not an official astronomical term. It was first coined by an astrologer, Richard Nolle, in 1979. He defined it as Ďa New or a Full Moon that occurs when the Moon is at or near (within 90% of) its closest approach to Earth in its orbití. It is not clear why he chose the 90% cut off in his definition.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2017, 04:16:49 PM »
It's worth pointing out that I doubt the existence of the supermoon was proven and confirmed from RET, I expect it was spotted long before they had the predictive explanation.

As it turns out:
Supermoon is not an official astronomical term. It was first coined by an astrologer, Richard Nolle, in 1979. He defined it as Ďa New or a Full Moon that occurs when the Moon is at or near (within 90% of) its closest approach to Earth in its orbití. It is not clear why he chose the 90% cut off in his definition.
So? That doesn't seem to state it was the first time it was noticed, just the first time anyone bothered giving it a name.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2017, 04:22:11 PM »
It's worth pointing out that I doubt the existence of the supermoon was proven and confirmed from RET, I expect it was spotted long before they had the predictive explanation.

As it turns out:
Supermoon is not an official astronomical term. It was first coined by an astrologer, Richard Nolle, in 1979. He defined it as Ďa New or a Full Moon that occurs when the Moon is at or near (within 90% of) its closest approach to Earth in its orbití. It is not clear why he chose the 90% cut off in his definition.
So? That doesn't seem to state it was the first time it was noticed, just the first time anyone bothered giving it a name.
But it does give a supermoon a pretty clear (if somewhat arbitrary) definition.  That's something that it might not have if we didn't already know the geometry of the moon's orbit (just one more thing that FET doesn't have).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2017, 04:26:20 PM »
But it does give a supermoon a pretty clear (if somewhat arbitrary) definition.  That's something that it might not have if we didn't already know the geometry of the moon's orbit (just one more thing that FET doesn't have).
What is your point here? None of this seems to address the answer to the OP. Great, the word got a definition then, how many years before then had people been aware that the moon got closer and further?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2017, 04:31:58 PM »
But it does give a supermoon a pretty clear (if somewhat arbitrary) definition.  That's something that it might not have if we didn't already know the geometry of the moon's orbit (just one more thing that FET doesn't have).
What is your point here? None of this seems to address the answer to the OP. Great, the word got a definition then, how many years before then had people been aware that the moon got closer and further?
That's pretty much what I was asking you.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2017, 04:38:15 PM »
That's pretty much what I was asking you.

I'm saying:
1. The moon moves closer and further in a repeating cycle.
2. The moon's phases are a repeating cycle.
3. We have the means to measure 1.
4. We have the means to measure 2.
5. We knew 1 occurred before we could measure it accurately.

Which of these is your problem? At a guess I'd say 5 but I don't see why, it seems more like they just didn't give a specific name for when the moon was both full and closest, it's pretty niche. It's not like we have a term for the opposite.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Re: Super moon
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2017, 06:19:11 PM »
I'm not saying that there's a problem.  I'm just asking how long do you suppose that it would take before you figure out those cycles and can be reasonably confident that any predictions based on those cycles would be correct?  One year?  Five years?  A hundred years?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Super moon
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2017, 05:49:13 AM »
The sun does not rotate around the earth. Any kind of rudimentary observations will tell you it is so. No calculations required.
There's actually no observation you can make that isn't equally consistent with a geocentric model.  The problems with geocentrism are in the lack of an explanation for how it works.  Planetary epicycles to explain retrograde motions, and the mechanic for how a larger body would orbit a smaller are two of the biggest issues.  These are revealed in the math, not in the observations however. 

A geocentric model of the solar system is actually a WAY better wrong answer than a flat Earth, which IS contradicted by multiple simple observations. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Super moon
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2017, 06:43:55 AM »
I'm not saying that there's a problem.  I'm just asking how long do you suppose that it would take before you figure out those cycles and can be reasonably confident that any predictions based on those cycles would be correct?  One year?  Five years?  A hundred years?
Given that you'd theoretically be able to notice the moon getting larger and smaller irrespective of whether the moon was full, a year'd likely give you plenty of data.

Re: Super moon
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2017, 12:37:56 PM »
The movements of the Sun, moon, stars etc is pretty predictable regardless, so long as you keep an eye on the seeming size of the moon and the phases you can calculate when the largest/nearest size coincides with a full moon.

In general you don't really need to know why things work in order to calculate the behaviour of future predictable phenomenon, sure you could do it the long way, but any FEer, REer, concave-Earther, toroidal-Earther, rhombicuboctahedral-earther... with eyes and records could figure it out.

FINALLY, RECOGNITION!
Marry me, Jane.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.