Double standards

Quote from: Stash

In the Myers paper you cite several times in the wiki they explain, "The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun." As well there is a whole section on how to express/predict the degree of the illusion. I didn't see any EA predictive qualities in the wiki.

Literally, the string experiment is all you need. You tried to counter that with the lying on the ground thing with a tree top and a cabin roof with something about 190 degrees of view (humans binocular stand around 120 degrees) but that example didn't make any sense.

The string is all you need.

Actually, Myers says that light curving on the the "celestial sphere" is causing it.

I think you misread the paper. Meyers does does state "light curving" like it's actually physically curving. It's stated: "The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

Much like this:

The string experiment is addressed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#String_Experiment and does not explain or demonstrate anything about where the Moon is pointing.

Yes, you addressed it, but not very well nor comprehensively because the string does demonstrate where the moon is pointing. Your wiki entry mentions something about laying on your back you can see 190 degrees of space. How does that work when I as a human can only see about 120 degrees. Try the string for yourself then you will see.

Tom, have you tried doing the math?

Hold up.
Your claim was you had a 3d model.
You have neither one of the RE or the FE.
Instead you have 3d pencils and 2d shaded circles.

I think you misread the paper. Meyers does does state "light curving" like it's actually physically curving. It's stated: "The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

Much like this:

https://i.imgur.com/qKda5lc.gif

Arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion occurs because straight lines appear as curves in the sky is an invalid argument, as no mechanism for this is given. Literally nonsense.

Yes, you addressed it, but not very well nor comprehensively because the string does demonstrate where the moon is pointing. Your wiki entry mentions something about laying on your back you can see 190 degrees of space. How does that work when I as a human can only see about 120 degrees.

That's an easy one. You are wrong. We can see 190 degrees, not 120 degrees. There is a source for that statement in the Wiki. This can be solved by a quick google search before posting.

Hold up.
Your claim was you had a 3d model.
You have neither one of the RE or the FE.
Instead you have 3d pencils and 2d shaded circles.

Yep, there is a 3D model in that link. The 3D model shows that the perspective argument is incorrect.

If you want a special 3D model for whatever, make it yourself for your own argument.

Tom, have you tried doing the math?

That's a video going through the model in the Myers paper, which does not use RE distances and says that all of the celestial bodies are projected onto a screen close above the observer's heads.

From p. 9 in the Myers paper

The value of the angle α is the same for the vectors m, s and z or their corresponding unit vectors, which are used in Eq. (11) to avoid having to know the actual distances of the moon and the sun from the observer.

The dimensions for the Round Earth System are nowhere in the math by the author of that paper, nor is it in that video when describing the matter. At the 42 minute mark of that video the author says that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.

Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.

This is not a Round Earth model.

Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 03:12:08 PM

I think you misread the paper. Meyers does does state "light curving" like it's actually physically curving. It's stated: "The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

Much like this:

https://i.imgur.com/qKda5lc.gif

Arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion occurs because straight lines appear as curves in the sky is an invalid argument, as no mechanism for this is given. Literally nonsense.

You just claimed that "Myers says that light curving on the the "celestial sphere" is causing it." When Myers did not state that. Lot's of 'mechanism' is given for great circles appearing as arcs.
"While the slope of any straight line in 3-D space with respect to any plane is constant, the observed slope of the line changes according to the position of the observer and his line of sight. Similarly, when taking a photograph of the line, its slope recorded on the 2-D photographic image will depend upon the specific direction in which the camera is pointed."

There's a lot more in-depth discussion around this point in the paper. Did you read it or just pluck out graphics you liked?

Arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion occurs because EA indiscriminately and absent of predictive qualities bends light in the sky is an invalid argument, as no mechanism for this is given. Literally nonsense.

Quote from: Stack

Yes, you addressed it, but not very well nor comprehensively because the string does demonstrate where the moon is pointing. Your wiki entry mentions something about laying on your back you can see 190 degrees of space. How does that work when I as a human can only see about 120 degrees.

That's an easy one. You are wrong. We can see 190 degrees, not 120 degrees. There is a source for that statement in the Wiki. This can be solved by a quick google search before posting.

From the wiki: "When you lay on your back you can see 190 degrees of space1" There is no reference for this in the wiki. Binocular vision (2 eyes at once) is around 120. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

I like how the old picture with a 2D line trying to represent a 3D space has been removed. Others are still there though.

There's a lot more in-depth discussion around this point in the paper. Did you read it or just pluck out graphics you liked?

The arguments in the paper are discussed. Blindly pointing to a paper which you do not understand is insufficient. You can't even understand the argument to present it yourself.  You are posting random quotes about lines becoming arcs in the sky and insisting it as truth.

This may be how astronomers explain it, but lines arcing in the sky is not inherently true because they resort to using that argument.

From the wiki: "When you lay on your back you can see 190 degrees of space1" There is no reference for this in the wiki. Binocular vision (2 eyes at once) is around 120. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

Follow the ¹ superscript in the text that you quoted. It's right there.

It also says 190 degrees right in that link you provided from wikipedia:

humans have a maximum horizontal field of view of approximately 190 degrees with two eyes, approximately 120 degrees of which makes up the binocular field of view (seen by both eyes)

See? It says 190 degrees, in the very source that you claim to have read. You apparently did not read it at all. Embarassing.

Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 03:47:14 PM

There's a lot more in-depth discussion around this point in the paper. Did you read it or just pluck out graphics you liked?

The arguments in the paper are discussed. Blindly pointing to a paper which you do not understand is insufficient. You can't even understand the argument to present it yourself.  You are posting random quotes about lines becoming arcs in the sky and insisting it as truth.

Tom, we spent like 19 pages once just begging you to go outside and do the string experiment. You know, all zetetic like. You refused. That's all you have to do is stretch a string. It's taut. It's a straight line between the sun and moon, the light cast is straight and spot on. That's referred to as reality.

In the Meyers paper they even come up with formulae to predict this phenomenon. Where's the predictive element to EA in all this?

Quote from: Stash

From the wiki: "When you lay on your back you can see 190 degrees of space1" There is no reference for this in the wiki. Binocular vision (2 eyes at once) is around 120. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

Follow the ¹ superscript in the text that you quoted. It's right there.

It also says 190 degrees right in that link you provided:

Quote

humans have a maximum horizontal field of view of approximately 190 degrees with two eyes, approximately 120 degrees of which makes up the binocular field of view (seen by both eyes)

See? It says 190 degrees, in the very source that you claim to have read. You apparently did not read it at all.

Binocular.

Try the string experiment. It works. It is revelatory.

The "string experiment" is addressed. It does not prove that the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing at the sun. You have not addressed the Wiki.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#String_Experiment

String Experiment

Along the same lines as the above, we are given reference to "string experiments" in which the direction of the Moon's illuminated portion is able to be connected to the sun with a string.


Credit: Bobby Shafto

It has been argued that the string experiment shows that the bodies do actually point at each other. An illusion of some type is occurring and the string experiment "breaks the illusion," demonstrating that the illuminated portion of the Moon is actually pointing at the Sun. If it was not pointing at the Sun then it would not be possible to hold a straight piece of string along that path.

As a reply to this, consider the following scenario:

You are laying down on the ground on your back, facing upwards, and at the edges of your vision see the top of a pine tree on one side of your vision, and the top of a cabin on the other. You take out a string and connect them together across your vision. Have you proved that the tree is pointing at the cabin?

If you are laying down on the ground on your back and see the Moon pointing upwards on one side of your vision and see the Sun setting at the horizon on the other, a string connecting the two will no more prove that the Moon is pointing at the Sun than it would prove that a tree is pointing at a cabin. When you lay on your back you can see 190 degrees of space¹. Just because an object at one side might be pointing "up" at another object at the other side, it doesn't mean that they are pointing at each other.

When wrapped around the observer, this panoramic view of the moon tilt illusion:



Turns into this:



Art Credit: Todd Lockwood

In the above example both the Moon and airplane are on opposite sides of the Sun near point B. The Sun is on the horizon at point A. The Moon and airplane are not actually pointing at the Sun. The string merely connects them two dimensionally across a 'sphere of vision' exactly like the tree-cabin example.

If the airplane was actually pointing at the Sun in the above example, then when looking at the airplane face on, with the Sun on the horizon to your back, you should see the airplane pointed at you and tilted downwards towards the opposite horizon behind you. The same would also apply for the Moon. If the Moon were pointing at the Sun then when you face the Moon its illumined portion should point downwards at the Sun at the horizon behind you, just as an airplane would. Thus, we see that this assertion that the string experiment demonstrates that an illusion is occurring and that bodies are pointing at each other is erroneous. The string experiment may suggest that object positions and straight line paths behave as if they are curving on a dome of some manner, which may provide us with a clue in deciphering the nature of our world, but it does not demonstrate absolute directions of bodies.

A fish-bowl type simulation of the Moon Tilt Illusion can be seen in University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Moon Phases and the Horizon Diagram (.swf Archive) - "Provides a method of learning the correlation between the phase of the moon, the time of day, and the position of the moon in the sky."



Footnotes

¹ "our eyes sit in the front of our head, allowing us to see about 60 percent of world in front of us with both eyes, at the compromise that we can only see at maximum about 190 degrees around us (Block 1969; Wolfe 2006)" – Human Spatial Navigation, 2018, p.73

Binocular.

It's not talking about the area you see with two eyes at once. I just see a reading comprehension error on your part. We can see more than 120 degrees at any given time.

The "string experiment" is addressed. It does not prove that the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing at the sun. You have not addressed the Wiki.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#String_Experiment

Quote

String Experiment

Along the same lines as the above, we are given reference to "string experiments" in which the direction of the Moon's illuminated portion is able to be connected to the sun with a string.


Credit: Bobby Shafto

Do the string experiment yourself. C'mon, get out there and do it. From the Myer paper:

"Fix this direction by stretching a piece of string taut in front of your eye; however unlikely it may have seemed to you at first you will now perceive that the condition of perpendicularity is satisfied."

I've done it, it's a mind blowing illusion. Hence the name. The string is in your hands and it's a straight line. What's more Zetetic than that? Live a little.

As well, the paper goes on to create predicative formulas for the effect. What's EA got?

Again, a reading comprehension issue. I did not claim that the string experiment would not work. You are claiming that it proves that the illuminated part of the Moon points at the Sun. As described in the Wiki, it does no such thing

Lunar eclipses only happen durning a full moon. Solar eclipses only happen durning a new moon. It’s not a coincidence.

Quote from: Stash

In the Myers paper you cite several times in the wiki they explain, "The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun." As well there is a whole section on how to express/predict the degree of the illusion. I didn't see any EA predictive qualities in the wiki.

Literally, the string experiment is all you need. You tried to counter that with the lying on the ground thing with a tree top and a cabin roof with something about 190 degrees of view (humans binocular stand around 120 degrees) but that example didn't make any sense.

The string is all you need.

Actually, Myers says that light curving on the the "celestial sphere" is causing it.

No, it nowhere says that "light is curving" anywhere!
It does say "Straight lines in space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere."
Go and read THE MOON TILT ILLUSION by ANDREA K. MYERS-BEAGHTON AND ALAN L. MYERS and show where it says light curving on the the "celestial sphere"!

I cannot comprehend anyone being hung on simple illusions like this!
Have a look at this video from the Myers' document"

Near Tower Bridge along the Thames, London, UK by Andrea Beaghton
And note the comment under it:

Change in observed slope due to perspective

And then look again carefully at Bobby Shafto's video.

Moon Terminator Illusion by Bobby Shafto

The "string experiment" is addressed. It does not prove that the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing at the sun. You have not addressed the Wiki.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#String_Experiment

Surely the string stretched straight from the one ball in the direction of the moon to the other in the direction of the sun demonstrates that.

In closing, we can all observe the moon's terminator tilt illusion so how do you explain it from your flat Earth path of the Sun and Moon?

Again, a reading comprehension issue. I did not claim that the string experiment would not work. You are claiming that it proves that the illuminated part of the Moon points at the Sun. As described in the Wiki, it does no such thing

Regardless as to how you describe it in the wiki, it is not wrong. It, in fact works: The straight, taut string draws a line between the moon and sun AND demonstrates that the sun is pointing at the moon at the right angle. So it doesn't just "work" it is direct empirical evidence that the angles line up. Right before your very binocular eyes.

Just because you write something in your wiki doesn't make it right. If you actually did the string experiment you would see that it tells the whole story.

And the big part you're missing is that EA tells none of the story, predictively, mathematically, or otherwise. And all I need is a string. This seems to relate to the double standard.

No, it nowhere says that "light is curving" anywhere!
It does say "Straight lines in space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere."
Go and read THE MOON TILT ILLUSION by ANDREA K. MYERS-BEAGHTON AND ALAN L. MYERS and show where it says light curving on the the "celestial sphere"!

Myers says it here:

https://www.upenn.edu/emeritus/essays/MyersMoon.html

"The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere. A simpler explanation was provided in a conversation with Benjamin Shen, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Penn, who said that light appears to follow a great circle route from the sun to the moon. That's why the moon's lit face appears to us not to face the sun squarely, regardless of whether the sun is above or below the horizon."

And here:

https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

"The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

And elsewhere in the document here:

"Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because locations of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination. For the topocentric model used for the sun and the moon, location is specified by azimuth and altitude. All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere surrounding the observer. Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere."

He also says that the equations in the predictive portion use the celestial sphere concept:

"Our aim is to derive an equation for the magnitude of the moon tilt illusion that is straightforward to apply to all configurations of sun and moon in the sky. The viewer’s expectation for the direction of incoming light is modeled using vector geometry, which is appropriate for treating 3-D straight lines such as the sun-moon light ray. Analyzing an illusion may seem trivial but the explanation of the moon tilt illusion requires knowledge of the perspective projection basis of human vision, vector algebra, and geometrical concepts such as orthographic projections, the celestial sphere, and geodesics."

Maybe YOU should read it.

Surely the string stretched straight from the one ball in the direction of the moon to the other in the direction of the sun demonstrates that.

Nope. The string experiment stretches a string across our spherical field of vision. It does not prove that the illuminated part of the Moon is pointing at the Sun.



For a fish-bowl type simulation of the Moon Tilt Illusion see University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Moon Phases and the Horizon Diagram:

In closing, we can all observe the moon's terminator tilt illusion so how do you explain it from your flat Earth path of the Sun and Moon?

It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

The dimensions for the Round Earth System are nowhere in the math by the author of that paper, nor is it in that video when describing the matter.

The dimensions for the FE system are nowhere in the math in your wiki page either.  Or any FE math at all, for that matter.  Double standard much?

Lunar eclipses only happen durning a full moon. Solar eclipses only happen durning a new moon. It’s not a coincidence.

I would suggest consulting the Wiki.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Lunar_Phases

https://wiki.tfes.org/Lunar_Eclipse_due_to_Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 03:37:09 PM

The dimensions for the Round Earth System are nowhere in the math by the author of that paper, nor is it in that video when describing the matter.

The dimensions for the FE system are nowhere in the math in your wiki page either.  Or any FE math at all, for that matter.  Double standard much?

Markjo, YOU presented this mathematical model as a true representation of the RE system. It was not.

You are responsible for what you present, and I am responsible for what I present. The excuse of "there is not math there either" is a vain excuse. Math is not needed to discuss this. If you do choose to present math however, and it is not what you think it is, that is solely a failure on your part.

It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Literally, a piece of string and an actual observation is all that is needed to nullify your entire wiki entry.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 06:05:48 PM

It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Literally, a piece of string and an actual observation is all that is needed to nullify your entire wiki entry.

Not even addressing the argument given to you. Your tactic is to post and to pretend that it does not exist. I see that you concede the issue.

Quote from: sokarul on March 04, 2020, 05:12:32 PM

Lunar eclipses only happen durning a full moon. Solar eclipses only happen durning a new moon. It’s not a coincidence.

I would suggest consulting the Wiki.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Lunar_Phases

https://wiki.tfes.org/Lunar_Eclipse_due_to_Electromagnetic_Acceleration

The RE model explains it much better. Thanks though.

Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 06:14:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 06:05:48 PM

It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Literally, a piece of string and an actual observation is all that is needed to nullify your entire wiki entry.

Not even addressing the argument given to you. Your tactic is to post and to pretend that it does not exist. I see that you concede the issue.

Hardly, the argument is that a piece of string, strung taut between the moon and sun can't demonstrate that the angle of shadow on the moon lines up. When done, it does and clearly shows that the sun and moon are in alignment. All I need is a piece of string to demonstrate that unequivocally.

You, on the other hand, created a massive wiki page attempting to dispel this very simple notion and somehow weave in EA by just posting that old bendy light EA pic. I see nothing on the wiki page that achieves either especially considering that all you need is a piece of string to show your error.

Your argument has been addressed and dispensed with. Come back with doing the string experiment and show how it does not depict reality. Seriously, you obviously have not done it. It's really cool and shows you exactly what's going on.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 06:17:00 PM

Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 06:14:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 06:05:48 PM

It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Literally, a piece of string and an actual observation is all that is needed to nullify your entire wiki entry.

Not even addressing the argument given to you. Your tactic is to post and to pretend that it does not exist. I see that you concede the issue.

Hardly, the argument is that a piece of string, strung taut between the moon and sun can't demonstrate that the angle of shadow on the moon lines up. When done, it does and clearly shows that the sun and moon are in alignment. All I need is a piece of string to demonstrate that unequivocally.

You, on the other hand, created a massive wiki page attempting to dispel this very simple notion and somehow weave in EA by just posting that old bendy light EA pic. I see nothing on the wiki page that achieves either especially considering that all you need is a piece of string to show your error.

Your argument has been addressed and dispensed with. Come back with doing the string experiment and show how it does not depict reality. Seriously, you obviously have not done it. It's really cool and shows you exactly what's going on.

Again, you have failed to address the argument, and instead choose to post nonsense commentary. The argument for why the string experiment is wrong was posted in this thread several times, and you run from it. "The string experiment proooooves it" is an uncompelling response when there is information which shows that your "string experiment" proves no such thing.

Not addressing the arguments given to you = concession of the discussion

You have no argument, and are giving no argument, because you have none. You are unable to respond or defend your position.

Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 06:30:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 06:17:00 PM

Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 06:14:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 06:05:48 PM

It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Literally, a piece of string and an actual observation is all that is needed to nullify your entire wiki entry.

Not even addressing the argument given to you. Your tactic is to post and to pretend that it does not exist. I see that you concede the issue.

Hardly, the argument is that a piece of string, strung taut between the moon and sun can't demonstrate that the angle of shadow on the moon lines up. When done, it does and clearly shows that the sun and moon are in alignment. All I need is a piece of string to demonstrate that unequivocally.

You, on the other hand, created a massive wiki page attempting to dispel this very simple notion and somehow weave in EA by just posting that old bendy light EA pic. I see nothing on the wiki page that achieves either especially considering that all you need is a piece of string to show your error.

Your argument has been addressed and dispensed with. Come back with doing the string experiment and show how it does not depict reality. Seriously, you obviously have not done it. It's really cool and shows you exactly what's going on.

Again, you fail to even address the argument. The argument was posted in this thread several times, and you run from it. "The string experiment proooooves it" is an uncompelling response when there is information which shows that your "string experiment" proves no such thing.

Not addressing the arguments given to you = concession of the discussion.

But that's just the thing, there is nothing that shows that the string experiment isn't astoundingly accurate. Nothing. You just keep positing your wiki link, but the wiki link doesn't explain it away. What specific information shows that the the string experiment doesn't elucidate reality? None.

The uncompelling response is that you choose not to zetetically test it for yourself. Why?

And again, back to the double standard. You've got all kinds of 'perspective' 'optical' anomalies, 'atmospheric magnification', sprinkle in some EA when required, etc., corralled around something as simple as a Sunset. Yet when confronted with the moon terminator illusion, using a simple piece of string is all you need to show it is just that. An illusion. You're all up in arms as to how what we see can't be an illusion because that would be anathema? Just how many ways do you want to have things?

Get the string, do the experiment and report back.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2020, 05:12:46 PM

No, it nowhere says that "light is curving" anywhere!
It does say "Straight lines in space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere."
Go and read THE MOON TILT ILLUSION by ANDREA K. MYERS-BEAGHTON AND ALAN L. MYERS and show where it says light curving on the the "celestial sphere"!

Myers says it here:

https://www.upenn.edu/emeritus/essays/MyersMoon.html

"The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere. A simpler explanation was provided in a conversation with Benjamin Shen, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Penn, who said that light appears to follow a great circle route from the sun to the moon. That's why the moon's lit face appears to us not to face the sun squarely, regardless of whether the sun is above or below the horizon."

Myers does not say "light is curving"?

Benjamin Shen, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Penn, who said that light appears to follow a great circle route from the sun to the moon.

Benjamin Shen says "light appears to follow a great circle route from the sun to the moon". Note the "appears to follow"!

And here:

https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
"The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

Sure, but object space is the 3-D space that describes physical reality but "the celestial sphere" is simply a visual construct!

And elsewhere in the document here:
"Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because locations of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination. For the topocentric model used for the sun and the moon, location is specified by azimuth and altitude. All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere surrounding the observer. Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere."

Once again, "the celestial sphere" is simply a visual construct!

"Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because locations of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination"
But that does not mean light curves.
"Sailors rely upon the Mercator map projection for maps of the Globe because locations on the Earth depend only on their Latitude and Longitude"!
But that does not mean that the Earth is flat and rectangular!

Your claim is quite irrelevant!

He also says that the equations in the predictive portion use the celestial sphere concept:

"Our aim is to derive an equation for the magnitude of the moon tilt illusion that is straightforward to apply to all configurations of sun and moon in the sky. The viewer’s expectation for the direction of incoming light is modeled using vector geometry, which is appropriate for treating 3-D straight lines such as the sun-moon light ray. Analyzing an illusion may seem trivial but the explanation of the moon tilt illusion requires knowledge of the perspective projection basis of human vision, vector algebra, and geometrical concepts such as orthographic projections, the celestial sphere, and geodesics."

Maybe YOU should read it.

I have but maybe you should try to understand it and in particular the difference between the 3-D physical space and the visual construct of the celestial sphere.

Quote

Surely the string stretched straight from the one ball in the direction of the moon to the other in the direction of the sun demonstrates that.

Nope. The string experiment stretches a string across our spherical field of vision. It does not prove that the illuminated part of the Moon is pointing at the Sun.

Except that in the string experiment the lit side of the moon and of the ball point directly along the string as in:

And the other end is aligned with the Sun as in here:


What does it matter if the two balls and the string are nearby?

Quote from: rabinoz

In closing, we can all observe the moon's terminator tilt illusion so how do you explain it from your flat Earth path of the Sun and Moon?

It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Sure with your "bendy light" hypotheses from your supposed Electromagnetic Acceleration etc.
Either provide meaningful evidence for that hypothesis assumption or through it out!

You simply assume that your Electromagnetic Acceleration Hypothesis magically bends light up, left or right to match what has been observed on the Globe for millennia.

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2020, 06:11:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 03:37:09 PM

The dimensions for the Round Earth System are nowhere in the math by the author of that paper, nor is it in that video when describing the matter.

The dimensions for the FE system are nowhere in the math in your wiki page either.  Or any FE math at all, for that matter.  Double standard much?

Markjo, YOU presented this mathematical model as a true representation of the RE system. It was not.

No, I presented it as a mathematical explanation for the moon tilt illusion.  I dare say that the shape of the earth probably isn't even relevant to the model that they presented.  The math would probably still work for a small flat earth with the sun, moon and observer in the same relative positions to each other.

You are responsible for what you present, and I am responsible for what I present. The excuse of "there is not math there either" is a vain excuse. Math is not needed to discuss this.

The math is essential when you say that EA makes a certain prediction and you claim that you verified it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Nope. The string experiment stretches a string across our spherical field of vision. It does not prove that the illuminated part of the Moon is pointing at the Sun.

Except that in the string experiment the lit side of the moon and of the ball point directly along the string as in:

And the other end is aligned with the Sun as in here:


What does it matter if the two balls and the string are nearby?

The light which hits the ball is coming from the Sun in those photos, like so:



It is possible to put the camera near the sphere and get it to point in all sorts of directions, due to a close range perspective effect.

At MetaDump Mick West angles his camera below the sphere to get it to point upwards into like the Moon in the background here:



The ball points upward like the moon, right?

No.

When Mick West stands back far away from the scene we see that the ball on the post is pointing at the sun and the Moon does not, showing us that it was a close range perspective effect which got the ball to point that way.



Image provided by Mick West. Top red arrow is the Moon, bottom red arrow is the ball on a post. The ball is pointing at the Sun, as expected.

Mick West just positioned the camera up close to and beneath the ball to get it to look like the Moon. If he had elevated his camera the illuminated part would have moved out of sync to the Moon. You can position the camera close around the ball to get the illuminated portion to point in almost any direction you want. All of this is deception, and a desperate attempt to explain something in RE which cannot be explained. Perspective tricks do not explain this.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega

It's called an illusion because that's what it is... an illusion.

"The Moon Tilt Illusion is an illusion because it has the word illusion in the name" is a joke of an argument.

Nice try, Tom. Your argument there is a strawman. Surely even you can tell that your paraphrase is not what I said. Maybe not, though; perhaps you're not intentionally trying to be deceptive and really cannot see the difference. I'll be happy to explain the difference to you if you really don't see it.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega

Here's a post from the thread that illustrates a blunder in the incorrect idea you were touting:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77362.msg2090715#msg2090715

In this post you are arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion does not occur and that all pictures of it are fish-eye, that the illuminated portion of the Moon actually points at the Sun. This is false, and was pointed out to you in that thread. It is also seen with the naked eye, and is admitted to be seen with the naked eye in the sources in the tfes.org wiki link.

No, Tom, I did not argue that the illusion does not occur, nor did I say that all pictures that illustrate the illusion well were taken with fisheye lenses.

I did explain in some detail why it's obvious only in pictures taken with wide-angle lenses, that the typical half and gibbous moon examples shown require a wide angle lens, and the difference between garden-variety wide-angle lenses and fisheye lenses (which are wide-angle lenses so extreme that they can project points that are 180° apart into a single image).

In fact, you never replied to that post. You did later repeat the already-debunked assertion that the phenomenon had "no RE explanation" with no supporting data to back the claim up, and ignoring the fact that the paper your nice diagram came from does exactly that.

Nope. The string experiment stretches a string across our spherical field of vision. It does not prove that the illuminated part of the Moon is pointing at the Sun.

Yeah, strangely, it does. The string is taut, straight line, angle to angle. Try it and you will see. Until you do the experiment I don't see how you in good conscious and zetetically can refute it. Let us know what you find after you do the experiment.

Actually, Myers says that light curving on the the "celestial sphere" is causing it.

Where?
Do you have anything more than your baseless assertions?

Regardless, why would light curving on a celestial sphere have anything at all to do with EA?

The string experiment is addressed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#String_Experiment and does not explain or demonstrate anything about where the Moon is pointing.

Do you mean it is dismissed, without any sound justification?
You page isn't loading now, so I can't check.
But if it is anything your dismissal of the perspective argument it sure isn't "dealt with".

So far all the available evidence indicates that the moon terminator illusion is simply an illusion due to perspective, nothing more.

In this post you are arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion does not occur and that all pictures of it are fish-eye, that the illuminated portion of the Moon actually points at the Sun. This is false, and was pointed out to you in that thread. It is also seen with the naked eye, and is admitted to be seen with the naked eye in the sources in the tfes.org wiki link.

It is most certainly not false that the illuminated portion of the moon points to the sun.

Your eyes work just like cameras with 2 angular dimensions, not Cartesian dimensions.

Arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion is a result of a 3D world represented in 2D on our eyes is another joke, by someone who is clearly incapable of explaining this.

No, your pathetic dismissal is clearly another joke by someone completley incapable of defending their position.

If you wish to claim the moon terminator illusion is a problem for a RE, you need far more than pathetic dismissal.

Like I said, make an actual 3D model comparable to reality, i.e. the RE and see what it indicates.

All of your "arguments" should be demonstrable by objects and rooms in our environment. Straight lines should not look straight and arrows should not point at what they are pointing at. Instead, we are presented with wild speculation passed off as truth. We are given trash, in the utter failure to explain this.

You mean like what has been done, which you have simply dismissed without any valid justification?
The reason most straight lines appear straight is because you have a reference which your mind can use, typically an entire line.
You are not given trash; you are giving trash, with your utter failure to explain why it is a problem.

Yep, there is a 3D model in that link. The 3D model shows that the perspective argument is incorrect.

No, there are a few simple drawings which completley ignore the situation when the moon tilt illusion is actually observed.
It in no way demonstrates that the perspective argument is incorrect.

That is why I asked for a proper model, such as one made up in POV-ray.

Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.

The point is that the exact distance to the sun doesn't matter.
It could be 150 million km, or 150 billion km.
The difference is negligible.
likewise the entire system can be scaled (with the distance to both the sun and the moon changing) without effecting it.

You are laying down on the ground on your back, facing upwards, and at the edges of your vision see the top of a pine tree on one side of your vision, and the top of a cabin on the other. You take out a string and connect them together across your vision. Have you proved that the tree is pointing at the cabin?

Except that the tree and cabin are pointing up while the sun and moon are pointing towards you.
Fundamentally different.
So no, not an actual refutation.
Completely avoiding what it is actually showing.

But the bigger issue is that you are focusing on the wrong direction.
The moon illusion isn't the moon allegedly pointing away from the sun because it is pointing too much towards you or too far away from you, but because it allegedly points above or below the sun.
Your tree and cabin example is the former, which our eyes cannot easily detect as you lose that dimension.

That can easily be demonstrated by taking a thin disc, drawing an arrow on it and looking at it side on. Or just having a featureless stick represent that arrow. You cannot tell which way it is pointing towards or away from you, just if it is pointing left or right.

So the string quite easily demonstrates that the moon is not pointing above or below the sun.

You have no refutation, nor model; just excuses.

Myers says it here:

So nothing like what you claim.
No where are they saying it is light curving.
Instead they are saying that straight lines are great circles on the celestial sphere. This is entirely a result of projection, not a result of light curving.

Not addressing the arguments given to you = concession of the discussion

You have no argument, and are giving no argument, because you have none. You are unable to respond or defend your position.

So is that an admission of defeat from you, as you have failed to address arguments given to you?

When Mick West stands back far away from the scene we see that the ball on the post is pointing at the sun and the Moon does not, showing us that it was a close range perspective effect which got the ball to point that way.

And are the moon and ball still in the same direction?
No.
You may as well complain that the string close to the ball for the sun clearly points towards the sun. It has the same weight, absolutely none.

You need to be in a position where the sun and moon and the balls representing them are in the same kind of configuration in terms of the angle to them. If they are not you are not accurately modelling the system and show nothing.

As such you have failed to explain why perspective does not explain it.

Now, can you actually show any problem for the RE? Such as providing an actual 3D model based upon the reality of the RE which shows that the moon terminator illusion shouldn't happen?