Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion

In this episode of Discussions by Tom, we will analyze the below Post made by Tom in the Q&A Section:

Quote from: Etherax on August 07, 2018, 05:51:20 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 07, 2018, 05:38:48 PM

That's not a question about FET, you can read one of the hundreds of topics that already exist on that subject.

Actually it is, sorry. I should have made it more clear why I was asking. I have regular debates with this coworker of mine, and as a new member, I just wanted that one piece of evidence from a die-hard believer that would really deliver the "whammy" I'm looking for. Sorry to bother you, but anyone else can feel free to respond.

One easy one to observe is that when the moon and sun are in the sky together, the light of the moon does not point at the sun. It's called the Moon Terminator "Illusion".



RE'ers spam out perspective effects as an explanation, and link to close range examples where angles change at close range as bodies change distance radically, but they are unable actually show how such perspective changes are possible with Round Earth Geometry, where the earth and sun are far from the observer and equal distances away from the observer at all times.

It is possible to hold a pencil out horizontally and look at it from different angles close up to get the pencil to point upwards and downwards with close range perspective effects; but doing is harder to do so when the horizontal pencil is at a distance far from the observer. Those same motions would not cause the pencil to change. When the pencil is far from the observer it would require an equivalent change of ratio, which the Round Earth System cannot provide. In RET the sun and moon are far from the observer and equal distance from the observer at all times.

We are spammed with hallway examples where, when standing in the middle of a hallway, the angles of the ends of ceiling corners of the hallways are tilted upwards or downwards, but the concept of the sun and moon are "going down a hallway" and changing distance radically from the observer is actually the Flat Earth example, not a Round Earth example. Under RET the sun and moon are far away and maintain the same distance from the observer at all times. They do not change position in relation to the observer radically.

We are spammed with demands to hold a small ball up against the sky with the moon in the background and position yourself in a manner where the ball shows a similar scene to the moon. "Proof!" Yet, this is another dumb close range perspective effect, and is no different than the pencil explanation. It is possible to get a ball that is close to you into many orientations with slight movements, and, like the pencil, not so possible when the object is far away.

At some point astronomers did provided a mathematical equation to predict the changes, but unfortunately the distance to the Sun or Moon do not matter in the equations for the result; and so the predictive model is entirely frivolous as a Round Earth model.

It is a clear win for the Flat Earth model, and one that is easily observable to anyone. Look past the lies and excuses. The evidence is right there in the sky!

The Sun is not next to the moon, Tom.  It is several MILLION Miles further away from the Earth than the Moon, which results in the sunlight to appear on the back of the moon while the Sun and Moon appear to be next to each other.

I was just pointing this out to him. The sun may on earth system is in 3D space. Why does he think a 2d line should line up?
I want to know if he is just this dumb or intentionally trying to deceive.

In this episode of Discussions by Tom, we will analyze the below Post made by Tom in the Q&A Section:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2018, 05:06:57 AM

Quote from: Etherax on August 07, 2018, 05:51:20 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 07, 2018, 05:38:48 PM

That's not a question about FET, you can read one of the hundreds of topics that already exist on that subject.

Actually it is, sorry. I should have made it more clear why I was asking. I have regular debates with this coworker of mine, and as a new member, I just wanted that one piece of evidence from a die-hard believer that would really deliver the "whammy" I'm looking for. Sorry to bother you, but anyone else can feel free to respond.

One easy one to observe is that when the moon and sun are in the sky together, the light of the moon does not point at the sun. It's called the Moon Terminator "Illusion".



RE'ers spam out perspective effects as an explanation, and link to close range examples where angles change at close range as bodies change distance radically, but they are unable actually show how such perspective changes are possible with Round Earth Geometry, where the earth and sun are far from the observer and equal distances away from the observer at all times.

It is possible to hold a pencil out horizontally and look at it from different angles close up to get the pencil to point upwards and downwards with close range perspective effects; but doing is harder to do so when the horizontal pencil is at a distance far from the observer. Those same motions would not cause the pencil to change. When the pencil is far from the observer it would require an equivalent change of ratio, which the Round Earth System cannot provide. In RET the sun and moon are far from the observer and equal distance from the observer at all times.

We are spammed with hallway examples where, when standing in the middle of a hallway, the angles of the ends of ceiling corners of the hallways are tilted upwards or downwards, but the concept of the sun and moon are "going down a hallway" and changing distance radically from the observer is actually the Flat Earth example, not a Round Earth example. Under RET the sun and moon are far away and maintain the same distance from the observer at all times. They do not change position in relation to the observer radically.

We are spammed with demands to hold a small ball up against the sky with the moon in the background and position yourself in a manner where the ball shows a similar scene to the moon. "Proof!" Yet, this is another dumb close range perspective effect, and is no different than the pencil explanation. It is possible to get a ball that is close to you into many orientations with slight movements, and, like the pencil, not so possible when the object is far away.

At some point astronomers did provided a mathematical equation to predict the changes, but unfortunately the distance to the Sun or Moon do not matter in the equations for the result; and so the predictive model is entirely frivolous as a Round Earth model.

It is a clear win for the Flat Earth model, and one that is easily observable to anyone. Look past the lies and excuses. The evidence is right there in the sky!

The Sun is not next to the moon, Tom.  It is several MILLION Miles further away from the Earth than the Moon, which results in the sunlight to appear on the back of the moon while the Sun and Moon appear to be next to each other.

The angle of the moon terminator illusion changes in the sky. It is not in one single position:



Show how, under Round Earth model geometry, that it is possible for the Moon to point away from the sun at various angles, as in the Moon Terminator illusion.

We can take a half colored ball and recreate all of the orientations above with close range perspective effects, by ducking our head around it at various angles. But how is that possible in the Round Earth model when the sun and moon can't change ratios significantly? When bodies are far away, one has to move at greater distances to cause the same perspective effect.

A pencil held horizontally close to the observer will be subject to perspective and can point upwards or downwards with slight movements. A pencil that is 10,000 feet away from the observer, is no longer affected by those slight movements, and the observer must now move a much greater distance in relation to the pencil to get a similar perspective changing effect. Do you disagree with this?

The sun and moon are essentially the same distance from the observer at all times under the Round Earth model, are far away, and it should be demonstrated how the geometry of the Round Earth model can cause perspective effects.

The sun and moon are essentially the same distance from the observer at all times under the Round Earth model ...

What an interesting idea.

Show how, under Round Earth model geometry, that it is possible for the Moon to point away from the sun at various angles, as in the Moon Terminator illusion.

Just for a change, why don’t you show how the moon terminator illusion is better explained by the flat earth “model”.

That’s how science is supposed to work, right?

By showing how the new thing explains everything better than the old thing.

The angle of the moon terminator illusion changes depending on how high the moon is in the sky. It is not in one single position:



Show how, under Round Earth model geometry, that it is possible for the Moon to point away from the sun at various angles, as in the Moon Terminator illusion.

That looks like a horizontally-compressed Plate Carrée projection of about half a hemisphere. In this one the azimuth axis is squished by a factor of two compared to elevation (90° change in azimuth is the same length in the figure as 45° change in elevation in the figure); in a true Plate Carrée projection, equal angles in both directions would be represented by the same length. Since it's a projection of a sphere onto a plane, it suffers distortion problems like you get when projecting the spherical earth onto a flat map. The direction of the shortest distance between widely-separated points (or, sometimes, even closely-spaced points) will be wrong except in specific cases.

If you just blindly use a protractor on, say, a Mercator or similar projection of the world to determine the direction of travel to a distant location, you'll almost always be wrong. Those blue arrows in the figure are similarly wrong.

For instance, the shortest distance from New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (about 30° N, 90° W) to Dhaka, Bangladesh (about 24° N, 90° E) passes almost directly over the north pole. If you plot that on a cylindrical projection like a Mercator world map and didn't know any better, you'd probably say "bullshit! You don't want to go due north from New Orleans to get to central Asia!", but you'd be wrong. That's analogous to the leftmost column of phase illustrations in the figure above, where the red arrows point up (toward the zenith) and the rightmost column, where the red arrows point down (away from the zenith). Note that the illustrated phase at upper left (90° Az and 75° Alt) is only 30° from the illustrated phase at upper right (270° Az and 75° Alt) in the sky (same as the distance from each to the second illustrated phase below each), even though they are on opposite sides of the figure and the direction of the red arrows has reversed direction in the projection but not in the sky (both are pointing west, toward the sun). That's another manifestation of the kinds of distortion you get from projecting a sphere onto a plane.

You're just getting confused by the properties of projections again, Tom.

You're just getting confused by the properties of projections again, Tom.

I doubt that there is any confusion in Tom's understanding of the situation.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on August 16, 2018, 12:45:18 PM

You're just getting confused by the properties of projections again, Tom.

I doubt that there is any confusion in Tom's understanding of the situation.

There clearly was, or he was pretending to be confused. We know this because he didn't recognize that the red arrows in the figure he presented were the directions of great-circle paths between each illustrated phase and the sun, which is exactly what would be expected in the conventional sun-earth-moon model. Whether or not he now does realize that confusion (and will admit it) is an open question. I expect he'll say something soon that may settle that one unless he decides to run away.

To be fair, it's easy to see how someone unfamiliar with the issues that are introduced when trying to represent a spherical system in a plane would be surprised by some of the distortions.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on August 16, 2018, 07:19:23 AM

In this episode of Discussions by Tom, we will analyze the below Post made by Tom in the Q&A Section:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2018, 05:06:57 AM

Quote from: Etherax on August 07, 2018, 05:51:20 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 07, 2018, 05:38:48 PM

That's not a question about FET, you can read one of the hundreds of topics that already exist on that subject.

Actually it is, sorry. I should have made it more clear why I was asking. I have regular debates with this coworker of mine, and as a new member, I just wanted that one piece of evidence from a die-hard believer that would really deliver the "whammy" I'm looking for. Sorry to bother you, but anyone else can feel free to respond.

One easy one to observe is that when the moon and sun are in the sky together, the light of the moon does not point at the sun. It's called the Moon Terminator "Illusion".



. . . . .

At some point astronomers did provided a mathematical equation to predict the changes, but unfortunately the distance to the Sun or Moon do not matter in the equations for the result; and so the predictive model is entirely frivolous as a Round Earth model.

It is a clear win for the Flat Earth model, and one that is easily observable to anyone. Look past the lies and excuses. The evidence is right there in the sky!

The Sun is not next to the moon, Tom.  It is several MILLION Miles further away from the Earth than the Moon, which results in the sunlight to appear on the back of the moon while the Sun and Moon appear to be next to each other.

The angle of the moon terminator illusion changes depending on how high the moon is in the sky. It is not in one single position:



Show how, under Round Earth model geometry, that it is possible for the Moon to point away from the sun at various angles, as in the Moon Terminator illusion.

We can take a half colored ball and recreate all of the orientations above with close range perspective effects, by ducking our head around it at various angles. But how is that possible in the Round Earth model when the sun and moon can't change ratios significantly? When bodies are far away, one has to move at greater distances to cause the same perspective effect.

A pencil held horizontally close to the observer will be subject to perspective and can point upwards or downwards with slight movements. A pencil that is 10,000 feet away from the observer, is no longer affected by those slight movements, and the observer must now move a much greater distance in relation to the pencil to get a similar perspective changing effect. Do you disagree with this?

The sun and moon are essentially the same distance from the observer at all times under the Round Earth model, are far away, and it should be demonstrated how the geometry of the Round Earth model can cause perspective effects.

Perspective! Do you see any resemblance between the lunar terminator illusion and Rowbotham's explanation of sunrise and sunset whae the sun is supposedly an almost constant height above the earth? I do!

CHAPTER IX.
CAUSE OF SUNRISE AND SUNSET.

Bearing in mind the above phenomena it will easily be seen how the sun, although always above and parallel to the earth's surface, must appear to ascend from the morning horizon to the noonday or meridian position; and thence to descend to the evening horizon.

In the diagram, fig. 64, let the line E, D, represent the

FIG. 64.

surface of the earth; H, H, the morning and evening horizon; and A, S, B, a portion of the true path of the sun. An observer at 0, looking to the east, will first see the sun in the morning,

From: Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham)

A couple of discussion on this in other fora:
            The Moon Tilt & Terminator Illusions
            Why does the moon's terminator not appear orthogonal to the direction of the sun?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on August 16, 2018, 02:01:54 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on August 16, 2018, 12:45:18 PM

You're just getting confused by the properties of projections again, Tom.

I doubt that there is any confusion in Tom's understanding of the situation.

There clearly was, or he was pretending to be confused.

Ya think? Tom's dishonest, disingenuous tactics ought to be obvious to anyone who's even casually read his posts.

That looks like a horizontally-compressed Plate Carrée projection of about half a hemisphere. In this one the azimuth axis is squished by a factor of two compared to elevation (90° change in azimuth is the same length in the figure as 45° change in elevation in the figure); in a true Plate Carrée projection, equal angles in both directions would be represented by the same length. Since it's a projection of a sphere onto a plane, it suffers distortion problems like you get when projecting the spherical earth onto a flat map. The direction of the shortest distance between widely-separated points (or, sometimes, even closely-spaced points) will be wrong except in specific cases.

That is how the moon appears for the various elevations and positions during the phases. It's a depiction of the Moon Terminator Illusion. The moon in the sky is often not pointing at the sun. If you want to claim that the moon is projected onto a dome, and that is what causes the moon terminator illusion, why don't you come up with a theory of the earth where we all live under a planetarium dome that can explain it?

The moon is seen in the sky, and it points upwards away from the sun. Why does it do this? It can even happen when the sun itself is below the horizon.



The sun is below the horizon, yet the moon is pointing away from the sun and earth. Please explain this using the geometry of the Round Earth model! Where is the model? Why can't this be explained?

The Moon Terminator Illusion

A couple of discussion on this in other fora:
            The Moon Tilt & Terminator Illusions
            Why does the moon's terminator not appear orthogonal to the direction of the sun?

Perspective does not explain the Moon Tilt Illusion in the Round Earth model. From the VSauce video that "explains" the moon tilt illusion:



This is a close range perspective effect. The same effect is not going to occur with the same motions if the laptop screen is far from the camera. The camera would need to move of equal proportions if the laptop screen is far away.

Under the Sun-Earth-Moon system the bodies don't move closer or further from the observer enough, as compared to their distances, as to cause a large perspective effect changes.

Here is an experiment for you, which shows that perspective operates in ratios:



The experiment above is a clear demonstration that when bodies are further from you, the displacement must be greater to cause perspective effects.

Under the Earth-Moon-Sun system the bodies are far from the observer and essentially the same distance away from the observer at all times. They do not change distance radically, as is required to simulate the various perspective effects of the moon.

Show a model of the Round Earth System that can explain this, rather than poorly thought-out analogies.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 16, 2018, 03:32:29 PM

The Moon Terminator Illusion

A couple of discussion on this in other fora:
            The Moon Tilt & Terminator Illusions
            Why does the moon's terminator not appear orthogonal to the direction of the sun?

Perspective does not explain the Moon Tilt Illusion in the Round Earth model. From the VSauce video that "explains" the moon tilt illusion:



This is a close range perspective effect. The same effect is not going to occur with the same motions if the laptop screen is far from the camera. The camera would need to move of equal proportions if the laptop screen is far away.

Under the Sun-Earth-Moon system the bodies don't move closer or further from the observer enough, as compared to their distances, as to cause a large perspective effect changes.

Here is an experiment for you, which shows that perspective operates in ratios:



The experiment above is a clear demonstration that when bodies are further from you, the displacement must be greater to cause perspective effects.

Under the Earth-Moon-Sun system the bodies are far from the observer and essentially the same distance away from the observer at all times. They do not change distance radically, as is required to simulate the various perspective effects of the moon.

Show a model of the Round Earth System that can explain this, rather than poorly thought-out analogies.

Now extend those pencils many thousands of kilometers to the right an watch as they appear to tilt down towards the horizon - perspective!

Rowbotham explained!
It doesn't need a Globe to explain it.

Now extend those pencils many thousands of kilometers to the right an watch as they appear to tilt down towards the horizon - perspective!

Rowbotham explained!
It doesn't need a Globe to explain it.

The Round Earth System cannot change that much, as to cause much perspective. Explanatory image:

Top Down View of Earth and Moon



Using the above method on the Diameter of the Moon's Orbit and the Diameter of the Earth, to compute the difference in viewing/position angle for the Sun is even worse:

Earth Diameter: 7917.5 mi

Diameter of Moon Orbit: 238,900 x 2 = 477,800 mi

Distance from Earth-to-Sun: 92,900,000 mi

Circumference of Earth-to-Sun Radius: 2 * pi * 92,900,000 = 583,707,915.037

583,707,915.037 / 360 = 1621410.8751 mi per degree

(Moon Orbit Diameter) 477,800 mi / 1621410.8751 = 0.29468 Degrees Max

(Earth Diameter) 7917.5 / 1621410.8751 = 0.00488 Degrees Max

The maximum degrees of divergence in the Round Earth System is hardly changing at all. Where are all of the perspective changes for the Moon Terminator Illusion coming from?

Quote from: rabinoz on August 16, 2018, 05:02:01 PM

Now extend those pencils many thousands of kilometers to the right an watch as they appear to tilt down towards the horizon - perspective!

Rowbotham explained!
It doesn't need a Globe to explain it.

The Round Earth System cannot change that much, as to cause much perspective. Explanatory image:

Top Down View of Earth and Moon



Using the above method on the Diameter of the Moon's Orbit and the Diameter of the Earth, to compute the difference in viewing/position angle for the Sun is even worse:

Earth Diameter: 7917.5 mi

Diameter of Moon Orbit: 238,900 x 2 = 477,800 mi

Distance from Earth-to-Sun: 92,900,000 mi

Circumference of Earth-to-Sun Radius: 2 * pi * 92,900,000 = 583,707,915.037

583,707,915.037 / 360 = 1621410.8751 mi per degree

(Moon Orbit Diameter) 477,800 mi / 1621410.8751 = 0.29468 Degrees Max

(Earth Diameter) 7917.5 / 1621410.8751 = 0.00488 Degrees Max

The maximum degrees of divergence in the Round Earth System is hardly changing at all. Where are all of the perspective changes for the Moon Terminator Illusion coming from?

It is certainly not coming from the geometry of the Round Earth Sun-Earth-Moon system.

You should take the time to understand the Moon's Orbit around the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

The moon has an elliptical orbit with a 5.145° inclination from the ecliptic plane on its orbital plane. 




The orientation of the orbit is not fixed in space, but rotates over time. This orbital precession is also called apsidal precession and is the rotation of the Moon's orbit within the orbital plane, i.e. the axes of the ellipse change direction.

Lunar Perigee and Apogee isn't going to help.

The image I provided above used the mean distance, which is 238,900 mi.

From timeanddate.com:

Next Apogee (Furthest distance)

Aug 23, 2018 at 4:22 am
Distance: 252,119 mi

Next Perigee (Closest distance)
Sep 7, 2018 at 6:19 pm
Distance: 224,533 mi

Plop those figures into the method I provided above, and we will still see that the change is still going very small. Show how large perspective effects can work in the Round Earth model with such small displacements.

Lunar Perigee and Apogee isn't going to help you.

The image I provided above used the mean distance, which is 238900 mi.

From timeanddate.com:

Next Apogee (Furthest distance)

Aug 23, 2018 at 4:22 am
Distance: 252,119 mi

Next Perigee (Closest distance)
Sep 7, 2018 at 6:19 pm
Distance: 224,533 mi

Plop those figures into the method above, and we will still see that the change is still going very small. Show how large perspective effects can work in the Round Earth model with such small displacements.

The inclination of the orbital plane will.  Comparatively, the distance from the Earth to the Moon and then Sun, is like you looking at a pencil that is 5 inches away with the other object being ~162 feet away.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2018, 05:44:44 PM

Lunar Perigee and Apogee isn't going to help you.

The image I provided above used the mean distance, which is 238900 mi.

From timeanddate.com:

Next Apogee (Furthest distance)

Aug 23, 2018 at 4:22 am
Distance: 252,119 mi

Next Perigee (Closest distance)
Sep 7, 2018 at 6:19 pm
Distance: 224,533 mi

Plop those figures into the method above, and we will still see that the change is still going very small. Show how large perspective effects can work in the Round Earth model with such small displacements.

The inclination of the orbital plane will.  Comparatively, the distance from the Earth to the Moon and then Sun, is like you looking at a pencil that is 5 inches away with the other object being ~162 feet away.

I don't see how it matters if the moon is orbiting the earth on the equator, at a 5 degree inclination, or if the moon is orbiting the earth North to South, over the North or South Poles. Regardless of the orientation of that orbit, the math still shows that very little displacement is created with a far away moon, regardless if the moon is rotating around the earth horizontally or vertically.

Posting these random things only detracts from the "superior" Round Earth System, and shows that there is no explanation for this phenomenon that anyone can observe.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on August 16, 2018, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2018, 05:44:44 PM

Lunar Perigee and Apogee isn't going to help you.

The image I provided above used the mean distance, which is 238900 mi.

From timeanddate.com:

Next Apogee (Furthest distance)

Aug 23, 2018 at 4:22 am
Distance: 252,119 mi

Next Perigee (Closest distance)
Sep 7, 2018 at 6:19 pm
Distance: 224,533 mi

Plop those figures into the method above, and we will still see that the change is still going very small. Show how large perspective effects can work in the Round Earth model with such small displacements.

The inclination of the orbital plane will.  Comparatively, the distance from the Earth to the Moon and then Sun, is like you looking at a pencil that is 5 inches away with the other object being ~162 feet away.

I don't see how it matters if the moon is orbiting the earth on the equator, at a 5 degree inclination, or if the moon is orbiting the earth North to South, over the North or South Poles. Regardless of the orientation of that orbit, the math still shows that very little displacement is created with a far away moon, regardless if we are looking at it from the top or from the side.

Posting these random things only detracts from the "superior" Round Earth System, and shows that there is no explanation for this phenomenon that anyone can observe.

It isn't random, it applies to your posting of this:



Scale the distances down and the moon will be obscenely close while the sun is still very far away, which allows for variations in angles and perspective to matter greatly.

Scale the distances down and the moon will be obscenely close while the sun is still very far away, which allows for variations in angles and perspective to matter greatly.

The perspective changes in the Moon Tilt Illusion. It doesn't stay the same at all times. See the chart I posted above. The moon and earth aren't changing positions in relation to their distances enough as to cause much perspective.

You will have to provide the math or model, not just post "the moon's orbit is inclined 5 degrees from the equator. Explained!" Because that is not an explanation at all. It doesn't matter if the moon is orbiting over the equator or the North and South Poles. It doesn't matter if the moon is orbiting over the 45 degree latitude. It's the same thing. There will still be no significant displacement.

This thread is going to grow to many pages like on the other forum, with me repeatedly asking for a model or explanation using Round Earth geometry, and the Round Earth Buddy Parade consistently failing to explain this with their model.

Tactics will be used such as trying to change the topic. "Well, uh, how about this other thing from this other thread!" A clear admission of defeat. Seen it happen. This discussion has also taken place, at other times, on this forum before. Since you guys have a long history of failing to explain this, over and over, why not take the honest route and just give it up rather than embarrassing yourselves so thoroughly?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on August 16, 2018, 12:45:18 PM

That looks like a horizontally-compressed Plate Carrée projection of about half a hemisphere. In this one the azimuth axis is squished by a factor of two compared to elevation (90° change in azimuth is the same length in the figure as 45° change in elevation in the figure); in a true Plate Carrée projection, equal angles in both directions would be represented by the same length. Since it's a projection of a sphere onto a plane, it suffers distortion problems like you get when projecting the spherical earth onto a flat map. The direction of the shortest distance between widely-separated points (or, sometimes, even closely-spaced points) will be wrong except in specific cases.

That is how the moon appears for the various elevations.

That's a flat-plane representation of how the moon appears for the various elevations and azimuths. Since it's a representation of a spherical coordinate system projected onto a flat rectangle, it's distorted.

Apparently you are still confused by that. Or still claim to be. So now we know that much.

It's a depiction of the Moon Terminator Illusion.

There is no illusion. You think there is one because you don't understand what is plain to see, and present illustrations that you also don't understand to "prove" your case when, in fact, they show that you are wrong.

If you want to claim that the moon is projected onto a dome, and that is what causes the moon terminator illusion, why don't you come up with a theory of the earth where we all live under a planetarium dome that can explain it?

No, I don't claim that. You seem to be perplexed by the concept that a coordinate system that describes positions in terms of orthogonal angles from a point is a spherical coordinate system.

The moon is seen in the sky, and it points upwards away from the sun. Why does it do this? It can even happen when the sun itself is below the horizon.

That's easy! It'as not "pointing upwards" (at least your example below doesn't) and doesn't "point away from the sun".

The sun is below the horizon, yet the moon is pointing away from the sun and earth. Please explain this using the geometry of the Round Earth model! Where is the model? Why can't this be explained?

Easy peasy! The arrow in that image is in the plane of the image, but the direction of sunlight illuminating the moon isn't in that plane. It's from behind and to the right of the camera.

Here's that same image with the approximate location of the subsolar point on the moon indicated. The spot was "eyeballed in" and isn't guaranteed to be exact (but I suspect that arrow is similar) but should still illustrate the point.



Anyway... the sphere that the surface of the moon is projects as a circle on the plane of the image, but the point on the surface of the moon that the sun is directly above is closer to you than the center of the moon, so the direction to the sun from the center of the moon is out of the plane of the photo, over the photographer's right shoulder, and directly toward the sun, whether the sun is below his local horizon or not.

There is no illusion. Confusion on your part isn't illusion, it's just confusion.

The Moon Terminator Illusion exists. What kind of bad argument is that?

Here is Mick West on MetaBunk doing his "ball experiment." The top red arrow he painted is where the moon is pointing. The bottom red arrow that he painted shows where the moon should be if it were actually pointing at the sun.



Large version: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20161122-100811-h4i9p-jpg.22884/



The moon is not pointing towards the sun. The moon is pointing significantly higher than the sun.

Mick West did some close-up perspective positioning to get the ball to tilt upwards, like we did with the pencil experiment by rising it 5 inches in elevation near our face.

Show why the moon is pointing above the sun in such images. This is a phenomenon that is well known, and that anyone can see. It is not "carelessness" on part of any observer. There are Youtube videos of people with video cameras pointing out the moon and sun in the sky with the moon pointing above the sun. I have seen this on many occasions.

You need to explain this, using your model of the earth.

It's been explained Tom.  You even admitted to understanding it, but keep making up reasons (that amount to nothing) to deny it.  I can pretty much just copy and paste all my replies (along with several others) into this thread, and in a few weeks to a few months, it will all be repeated. 

Quote from: rabinoz on August 16, 2018, 05:02:01 PM

Now extend those pencils many thousands of kilometers to the right an watch as they appear to tilt down towards the horizon - perspective!

Rowbotham explained!
It doesn't need a Globe to explain it.

The Round Earth System cannot change that much, as to cause much perspective. Explanatory image:

Top Down View of Earth and Moon



Using the above method on the Diameter of the Moon's Orbit and the Diameter of the Earth, to compute the difference in viewing/position angle for the Sun is even worse:

Earth Diameter: 7917.5 mi

Diameter of Moon Orbit: 238,900 x 2 = 477,800 mi

Distance from Earth-to-Sun: 92,900,000 mi

Circumference of Earth-to-Sun Radius: 2 * pi * 92,900,000 = 583,707,915.037

583,707,915.037 / 360 = 1621410.8751 mi per degree

(Moon Orbit Diameter) 477,800 mi / 1621410.8751 = 0.29468 Degrees Max

(Earth Diameter) 7917.5 / 1621410.8751 = 0.00488 Degrees Max

The maximum degrees of divergence in the Round Earth System is hardly changing at all. Where are all of the perspective changes for the Moon Terminator Illusion coming from?

I still don't get what you think those degree values mean. You took the earths diameter and divided it by the moon's miles per degree. Then you called that divergence and wonder why it changes the moon's terminator?
You don't even use 12 hours anywhere. Everything moves in 12 hours. The sun moves roughly 0.49 degrees along it's orbit. The moon moves roughly 6.59 degrees along it's orbit. The earth rotates roughly 180 degrees.

Alpha:
"There is no illusion. Confusion on your part isn't illusion, it's just confusion."


Aaaaahahahhahaha

Posting these random things only detracts from the "superior" Round Earth System, and shows that there is no explanation for this phenomenon that anyone can observe.

I'm not sure why you keep doing this, but you perpetually pull things out of context and splat them into a post. And not cite your source. For instance the Fig. 10 image in your original post comes from a paper out of UPENN.

From the abstract:
"This  expectation (Moon Tilt Illusion) does  not  correspond  to  the  reality  that
observation by direct vision or a camera is according to perspective projection, for
which the observed slope of a straight line in three-dimensional object space changes
according to the direction of observation.  Comparing the observed and expected
directions of incoming light at the moon, we derive an equation for the magnitude
of the moon tilt illusion that can be applied to all configurations of sun and moon
in the sky."

Here's the paper:
https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

Now I certainly can't speak to the validity of the math contained therein, decidedly above my pay grade. But I think it's worth taking a look and see for yourselves.

Also, in case you missed it in previous threads; the image used in the faq is edited. It’s actually a screen grab from a video that animates the moon rotating to exaggerate the effect. Just more fe dishonesty. Moon terminator illusion only exists in photos with wide angle lens. Go outside and use your damn eyes flat earthers!

The Moon Terminator Illusion exists. What kind of bad argument is that?

Pretty bad. You state an incorrect assertion then you ask how bad your argument is. Doesn't get much worse than that.

Here is Mick West on MetaBunk doing his "ball experiment." The top red arrow he painted is where the moon is pointing. The bottom red arrow that he painted shows where the moon should be if it were actually pointing at the sun.

The image of the moon in that photo is so small it's hard to draw the arrow accurately, but it's obviously pointing upward too steeply to represent a right angle to the crescent. And, again, a photographic image is a projection of a scene onto the plane of the film or sensor. You keep ignoring that you're looking at a 3D scene projected onto a flat plane, so even if the arrow were correctly drawn, its direction would still be skewed by the projection. The lower arrow is meaningless.

The moon is not pointing towards the sun. The moon is pointing significantly higher than the sun.

The sun is not in that image. Are you still talking about the one above that, with the red arrows?

Mick West did some close-up perspective positioning to get the ball to tilt upwards, like we did with the pencil experiment by rising it 5 inches in elevation near our face.

Presumably it's the second image, with moon, yellow ball, and white object you're now talking about, right?

What is it supposed to be showing? The yellow ball is illuminated about the same as the moon; its crescent maybe slightly thinner consistent with the angle to the sun bring slightly less. The white object appears to be distinctly aspherical. Is it an egg? Its illumination does not appear to be consistent with the yellow ball, but since its shape is not known, it's impossible to tell.

Show why the moon is pointing above the sun in such images. This is a phenomenon that is well known, and that anyone can see. It is not "carelessness" on part of any observer.

There are Youtube videos of people with video cameras pointing out the moon and sun in the sky with the moon pointing above the sun. I have seen this on many occasions.

You need to explain this, using your model of the earth.

I've explained it several times now but you don't seem to be listening. Photographic images are 2D projections of 3D scenes. Projections introduce distortions. This is well known and there is no way around it. There is nothing else to explain.

I've explained it several times now but you don't seem to be listening. Photographic images are 2D projections of 3D scenes. Projections introduce distortions. This is well known and there is no way around it. There is nothing else to explain.

I thought this was a pretty cool visual explanation from a photographer's perspective: (https://chrisjones.id.au/MoonIllusion/)

The above is basically asserting that a green arrow in space that points at the sun will not point at the body it is pointing at, because of the way we are interpreting 3D space onto our 2D retinas or photographs.

Another Moon Terminator "Illusion" from the web:



It is asserted that the above is the cause of "imprinting a 3D scene onto the 2D plane of the picture"

Open any 3D graphical program and make an arrow pointing at a ball. Take a screenshot.

The arrow will always point at the ball

Create a 3D model and create a cone or arrow that points at a ball. Can you position the scene in a way that the arrow is not pointing at the ball?







My screenshot is turning the "3D image" into a "2D image." Why does the arrow always point at the ball?

I took a picture of a 3D scene in various positions and the arrow always pointed at the ball.

The assertion that arrows would not point at they are pointing at also implies that if you took a picture of any line in 3D space, that it would appear curved on the picture. What a wacky idea. Please demonstrate this wild assertion.