Double standards

Quote from: Themightykabool

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.

But it was YOUR claim that you debunk convention science with your wiki.
Youve made neither a debunked proof that the RE model does not work by recreating it in a 3d model as you clained.
Instead you made a 3d pencil.
Check your claim.
Very misleading.

You claimed you made a 3d model to prove your tilt explanation.
You did not.
Very misleading.
Conventional science has a plethera of youtubes and websites.
But do keep on deflecting.



This guy paid attention in english class and did a proper job of referencing.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 03:02:20 PM

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

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

Myers says it right 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."

Again:

"The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere."

And again:

"The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere."

That's the scientific explanation for the Moon Tilt Illusion.

And he says the same:

"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."

Please read the material. The scientific explanation for the Moon Tilt Illusion is that lines curve, or are projected on, a celestial sphere.

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).

The effect is also seen with the naked eye, not only wide angle lenses. You are making arguments which only you are arguing for.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 08:41:49 PM

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.

The Wiki does not say that the experiment will fail. It says that it will succeed, and that it is fallacious to use this as evidence that the Moon points at the sun.

Again, you have failed to address this:

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

Quote

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.

The Moon isn't pointing at you in the Moon Tilt Illusion. Your arguments are not making sense at all. The situation is exactly the same. You are connecting two points in your spherical field of vision and connecting them together does not prove or demonstrate where those bodies are actually pointing.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 03:23:39 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool

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.

But it was YOUR claim that you debunk convention science with your wiki.
Youve made neither a debunked proof that the RE model does not work by recreating it in a 3d model as you clained.
Instead you made a 3d pencil.
Check your claim.
Very misleading.

You claimed you made a 3d model to prove your tilt explanation.
You did not.
Very misleading.
Conventional science has a plethera of youtubes and websites.
But do keep on deflecting.



This guy paid attention in english class and did a proper job of referencing.

The 3D model in the Wiki shows the perspective explanation to be wrong. That's what I said. A poor reading comprehension on your part.

If you want a special model made of whatever, DO IT YOURSELF.

The perspective arguments are invalid, as in order for a body to tilt upwards to perspective we would need to see different sides of the body as it changes orientation, like when lifting any body up in front of us. We do not see this of the Moon. The Moon does not shift angle over the course of the night. I would suggest thinking hard about these terrible, poorly thought, explanations that you believe to be true. A little thought shows them to be absolutely false.

This is the desperate attempt to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion by the zealots of RE Theory, who are willing to shout any pseudoscience and explanation, no matter how false, to justify their ball religion.

"Persctive did it" .... FALSE

The Moon Tilt Illusion disproves RE, and all of this is a desperate scramble to say whatever possible, and imagine any untruthful explanation, to justify a belief system.

Sky domes that make lines into curves, untrue perspective. Hilarious, and Desperate, and Wrong.

We seem to gotten caught up in the arguments rather on evaluating the double standardness of actions.

Lets move this tilt to a proper tilt thread.
Where was tilt started?

Back to double standards.
Funny the king of misrepresenting quotes is lecturing me on reading comprehension.

Well ill flip it back to you in the new thread i made.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85058.0

Myers says it right here:

That is not what you claimed he said.
Try again.
Where is he saying that light is curving?
Saying that projecting the line onto the celestial sphere means it follows a great circle is not saying that light is curving.
It is saying it is a result of projection.

Please read the material. The scientific explanation for the Moon Tilt Illusion is that lines curve, or are projected on, a celestial sphere.

They are vastly different.
One is saying that light magically curves.
The other is saying it is merely a result of projection, i.e. the fact that we view the world in 2 angular dimensions yet often project it onto 2 Cartesian dimensions, i.e. exactly what I said before, which you dismissed as a joke.

And why ignore everything else? Is it because you know you can't respond?

According to you, that is an admission of defeat, so do you admit defeat?

The Wiki does not say that the experiment will fail. It says

It says a lot of things. Unfortunately it completely fails to substantiate them.

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.

The extent of the downwards tilt is negligible. So what you actually see is the object pointing towards the horizon behind you, which basically means it is pointing towards you.
This is observed during a full moon.

Also note that this requires the specific arrangement of the moon, you and the sun basically being in a straight line. That is NOT when the moon terminator illusion is typically observed.
Instead the moon terminator illusion is typically observed closer to 90 degrees.
That means the moon and plane should NOT be pointing towards the horizon behind you. Instead it should be pointing to the right.

Also, the illusion will also occur with the sun IN THE SKY, not on the horizon.
That means it shouldn't be pointing down. Instead it should be pointing up, towards the sun. (The exact angle varies with alignment).

So everything about that alleged refutation of yours is pure nonsense.

I wont even bother with your pathetic drawing which doesn't even attempt to match a photo.

The Moon isn't pointing at you in the Moon Tilt Illusion. Your arguments are not making sense at all.  The situation is exactly the same.

No, your strawmen doesn't make sense.
In order for it to be a comparison to the moon tilt illusion, you need the same setup, with the moon and sun both basically at the ground pointing "up".

Now how about instead just pathetic dismissal of my claim you try to actually refute it.
Perhaps start by addressing the fact that your straw-man deals with them pointing away in the direction your vision naturally removes while the moon tilt illusion has the moon appear to point away in the direction your vision does not naturally remove?

Because of that, the situation is not exactly the same at all. It practically isn't the same at all.

And remember, the requirement isn't to show that the moon is actually pointing at the sun.
It is to show that arguments based upon superficial reasoning that claim the moon isn't pointing at the sun, is wrong, by demonstrating that objects which appear to not be pointing at each other actually are pointing at each other.

That then shows that your argument is at best unsubstantiated and at worst, completely wrong.

The 3D model in the Wiki shows the perspective explanation to be wrong. That's what I said.

And you saying it means nothing.

No where in it do you demonstrate that it is not caused by perspective. That is because you make no attempt to model it in any way comparable to the moon tilt illusion. Not even your pencils do that.
Instead you keep a fairly narrow FOV.
Yet the examples shown of the moon terminator illusion have the moon and sun separated by a much larger angle.

So again, you disprove nothing.
You fail to show any problem with the perspective argument.
Try to make a model which matches a photo.

This is the desperate attempt to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion by the zealots of RE Theory

No, this is a desperate attempt by FE zealots to pretend the moon tilt illusion, which is perfectly explained under our current understanding of the universe, to be a problem for reality, making up whatever dishonest crap they can to pretend it is a problem.



Again, where is your 3D model based upon the round Earth that shows that it is not caused by perspective?

You have absolutely no basis for claiming the moon tilt ILLUSION is a problem for the RE, rather than merely the result of perspective.

Again, where is your model, based upon a FE and magic bendy light which actually explains the moon tilt illusion, with the math to support it?
Until you provide such a model, you have no basis to claim FE can explain it and thus no basis to act like this in any way evidence of Earth being flat.

“ I also created a 3D model showing that perspective does not explain it.”

“ The 3D model in the Wiki shows the perspective explanation to be wrong. ”

 Did you make the 3D model or not?

Please read the material. The scientific explanation for the Moon Tilt Illusion is that lines curve, or are projected on, a celestial sphere.

Tom, perhaps you should read some material on what the celestial sphere is and isn't.  One thing that it isn't is a real sphere.

Celestial Sphere

Used to describe the position of objects in the sky, the celestial sphere is a fictitious sphere centred on the Earth upon which all celestial bodies can be projected.

Guys

Move the discussion please.

This is the desperate attempt to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion by the zealots of RE Theory, who are willing to shout any pseudoscience and explanation, no matter how false, to justify their ball religion.

"Perspective did it" .... FALSE

Yes, perspective did it and that is all it needs.

The Moon terminator tilt illusion is simply perspective and there's no need to drag in anything else.
Is this con-trail sloping steeply or does it simply appear that way due to perspective?


Exactly the same as the Flat Earth Society's claimed reason that the Sun appears to "go down" and finally set:

The Setting of the Sun
Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west.

This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them.

When a plane flies away from an observer, without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon. In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.

For more information please read Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe

All it needs is simple perspective to explain so simple but effective illusion as the Moon terminator tilt illusion.

The Moon Tilt Illusion disproves RE, and all of this is a desperate scramble to say whatever possible, and imagine any untruthful explanation, to justify a belief system.

It does nothing of the sort! There is no "desperate scramble to say whatever possible, and imagine any untruthful explanation, to justify a belief system".

Sky domes that make lines into curves, untrue perspective. Hilarious, and Desperate, and Wrong.

No! No one says that "Sky domes", make the the Celestial Sphere "make lines into curves".
The Celestial Sphere and perspective can make straight lines in 3-D space appear as curves.

This is the same effect as perspective making the straight path of a plane flying level from horizon to horizon appear to climb up from one horizon and curve over sink below the opposite horizon.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 04, 2020, 08:59:03 PM

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).

The effect is also seen with the naked eye, not only wide angle lenses.

OK. So? Human vision covers a pretty wide angle.

You are making arguments which only you are arguing for.

What you say is wrong in many ways. Different people pick up on different points.

Guys

Move the discussion please.

Good idea.

Tom, why not continue this discussion in the thread about this very topic that was already started for you?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77362.msg2089920#msg2089920

Are you still hoping no one would realize it was there? I think it's already too late for that.

[Edit to add]

The originator of this thread has created a new thread to continue the off-topic discussion about the moon-tilt illusion.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85058.msg2239084#msg2239084

Let's carry on there unless you think that discussion is done.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 05, 2020, 12:18:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 03:02:20 PM

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

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

Myers says it right 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."

The "celestial sphere" is not a real sphere, it's just a spherical coordinate system

Again:

"The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere."

The "celestial sphere" is not a real sphere, it's just a spherical coordinate system

And again:

"The scientific explanation is based on the projection of a straight line onto the surface of a sphere."

The "celestial sphere" is not a real sphere, it's just a spherical coordinate system

Please read the material. The scientific explanation for the Moon Tilt Illusion is that lines curve, or are projected on, a celestial sphere.

Please try to understand the material you quote. 

Quote from: markjo on December 06, 2019, 06:45:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 05, 2019, 10:52:02 PM

Many seem to blame NASA for this "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth" and claim the ubiquitous "8 inches per mile squared" formula is NASA's formula when it was published in Robotham's Zetetic Astronomy:

Apparently no one ever picked up on the fact that "8 inches per mile squared" describes the curvature of a parabola, not a sphere.

It is very close out to even hundreds of miles. It isn't "curvature" but a measure of how far the horizon falls below the local horizontal.

The geometrical definition of local curvature is the inverse of the radius if the osculation (kissing) circle. For the Earth that is just 1/radius.

But calling it a NASA formula is just plain ignorance of the contents of their own SacredTexts but . . . . . 'nuff said!

Could you tell where this formula is accurate and its limitations.

Looks like the thread has come back around to something like my question, i didn't read most of it yet, but please answer if you didn't already.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2019, 12:44:50 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 06, 2019, 06:45:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 05, 2019, 10:52:02 PM

Many seem to blame NASA for this "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth" and claim the ubiquitous "8 inches per mile squared" formula is NASA's formula when it was published in Robotham's Zetetic Astronomy:

Apparently no one ever picked up on the fact that "8 inches per mile squared" describes the curvature of a parabola, not a sphere.

It is very close out to even hundreds of miles. It isn't "curvature" but a measure of how far the horizon falls below the local horizontal.

The geometrical definition of local curvature is the inverse of the radius if the osculation (kissing) circle. For the Earth that is just 1/radius.

But calling it a NASA formula is just plain ignorance of the contents of their own SacredTexts but . . . . . 'nuff said!

Could you tell where this formula is accurate and its limitations.

It is in Rowbotham's Zetetic Astronomy: CHAPTER II. EXPERIMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE TRUE FORM OF STANDING WATER, AND PROVING THE EARTH TO BE A PLANE.
The values for the drop from the local horizontal are accurate enough up to hundreds  of miles but it has two severe problems:

• It only gives "the drop from the local horizontal" and not the "hidden height" if the observe is above the water (or reference) level.
  
  
• It makes no allowance for atmospheric refraction and there is almost always some atmospheric refraction.
  The usual or "standard" refraction can be approximately allowed for by using ⁷/₆ of the Earth's radius but this is only the "usual refraction".
  Sometimes this atmospheric refraction can be so severe as to change this view:
  
  to this highly distorted one:
  
  Both screenshots are taken from the same location and the same stated camera height yet look at the difference that changed atmospheric conditions make.
  
  I don't doubt that there could be atmospheric refraction in the second case because photos taken within a few metres of a water surface always have this risk.
  

But refraction can often just make things that seem too far away come into view with little distortion.

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

Maybe if you hold small ball against the Moon and see the shadow on it matching the Moon shadow?

Wiki text saying "It doesn't" won't do anything.
If the shadow matches or not everyone can test on their own.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 05:06:53 PM

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

Maybe if you hold small ball against the Moon and see the shadow on it matching the Moon shadow?

Wiki text saying "It doesn't" won't do anything.
If the shadow matches or not everyone can test on their own.

That's wrong. It only matches when you position your camera up close beneath the ball.

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



Based on this angle do you think that if Mick West had held his camera at a higher elevation so that it was at a parallel right angle to the ball, that the illuminated part would point upwards like the Moon?

When he steps backwards, he provides an image of the scene showing that the Ball on the post points at the Sun and the Moon does not.



If you position the camera up close at verious positions around the ball, you can get it to point anywhere you want. This demonstrates nothing except total deception.

A green arrow pointing at Sun, attached with string. Purple arrow in background pointed into sky:



From another angle:



WOW!!! The Purple Arrow Must Be Pointed at the Sun!!

There is no way looking at a body from its underside, especially in close proximity, can give a fallacious result.

Quote from: Macarios on March 18, 2020, 09:24:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 05:06:53 PM

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

Maybe if you hold small ball against the Moon and see the shadow on it matching the Moon shadow?

Wiki text saying "It doesn't" won't do anything.
If the shadow matches or not everyone can test on their own.

That's wrong. It only matches when you position your camera up close beneath the ball.

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

Right, because you're observing the moon from below, so you need to observe the ball from below to get the same conditions.

Based on this angle do you think that if Mick West had held his camera at a higher elevation so that it was at a parallel right angle to the ball, that the illuminated part would point upwards like the Moon?

Totally irrelevant.  If you change the angle at which you're observing the ball, then it's no longer an accurate analog to observing the moon.

Markjo, you are admitting that this only works from a SPECIFIC ANGLE selected by the observer, to get the ball to point like the Moon. The observer can get the ball to point in any direction he wants by moving the camera around the ball. All directions and phases can be simulated, by positioning of the camera close around the ball.

This does nothing to show that the Moon is actually pointing at the Sun. A totally fallacious argument.

There are no inherent "conditions". The Moon points upwards above the Sun when it is rising and half way into the horizon, too.  The Moon also points downwards, on the opposite side of the sky, still above the observer.

You are merely making things up, in the desperate attempt to justify this.

Yep, analogs should be as close an approximation as possible.  Say like viewing from the same angle since we are viewing a 3D world in a 2D picture.  If you move the camera only, the shadow/terminator line will not change.  Are you suggesting the shadows magically change to hide the flat Earth? 

Markjo, you are admitting that this only works from a SPECIFIC ANGLE selected by the observer, to get the ball to point like the Moon. The observer can get the ball to point in any direction he wants by moving the camera around the ball. All directions and phases can be simulated, by positioning of the camera close around the ball.

That's right. The angle we're concerned with is the angle formed by the moon, you, and the sun. You need to replicate that angle by covering the moon with your ball to get a match, or hold it very close to get an approximate match. The moon-observer-sun angle will be very close to the same from anywhere on earth at any moment because the moon and sun are so distant relative to the diameter of the earth.

This does nothing to show that the Moon is actually pointing at the Sun. A totally fallacious argument.

How so? Do you think the ball is not illuminated by the sun, either?

There are no inherent "conditions". The Moon points upwards above the Sun when it is rising and half way into the horizon, too.  The Moon also points downwards, on the opposite side of the sky, still above the observer.

The condition, if you want to accurately model at small scale, is that you must replicate the angles as closely as possible.

Read the paper for an explanation of the illusion you describe. If you can't understand the math in the paper, well... tough.

You are merely making things up, in the desperate attempt to justify this.

Nope. That's what you are doing.

That's wrong. It only matches when you position your camera up close beneath the ball.

No, it is completley correct.
It isn't suprising that it only matches when you correctly position the ball such that it matches the moon.

Perspective doesn't give a damn how far away the object is, only the angles involved.

I also demonstrated beyond any doubt, by making an actual 3D model based upon the RE that it is a result of perspective.

Based on this angle do you think that if Mick West had held his camera at a higher elevation so that it was at a parallel right angle

Are we viewing the moon from the same angle? NO!
That is the point.
The reason we see this illusion is due to the angle that we see the moon from.
As such, in order to replicate it with a ball, you need to view the ball from the same angle.

If you position the camera up close at verious positions around the ball, you can get it to point anywhere you want. This demonstrates nothing except total deception.

You are right about one thing, your argument is nothing except total deception (although I would happily throw in a few other descriptors).

Yes, if you change the angle, you can have it appear to point in almost any direction.
Likewise, if you were in a space craft you could move around the moon and have it appear to point in almost any direction.
That is the entire point of the FE explanation.
The apparent angle of the moon depends upon the angle it is being viewed from.

Why do you repeatedly ignore this and instead repeat the same dishonest garbage?

Markjo, you are admitting that this only works from a SPECIFIC ANGLE selected by the observer, to get the ball to point like the Moon.

Yes, and that isn't surprising at all.
If the moon and ball are in basically the same direction, it works. (The best case would be the exact same direction but then unless the ball is small enough you wont see the moon to compare.
If the moon and ball are in significantly different directions you are not modelling the moon any more and it is useless.


Appealing to the fact that if you were to view the moon from positions far from Earth you could get it to point in any direction is a completley fallacious argument.

There are no inherent "conditions".

Yes there is.
When the moon terminator illusion is being observed, it is at a particular time of day, with the moon having a particular phase and being a particular direction.
If you do not reproduce that setup, you are not modelling the illusion.
If you view the ball from above, while you view the moon from below, you are not modelling the illusion; you are modelling irrelavent garbage.

This is not a difficult concept to understand and I cannot believe that anyone would be incapable of grasping it. As such the only option left is that you are being intentionally dishonest by blatantly lying about these models.

Again, if you want to model the moon with a small ball, you need to view the ball and moon from the same angle. i.e. they should be as close to alignment as possible.

That means if you want to view the ball from above, you need to view the moon from above, being very far off Earth.
So stop bringing up viewing the ball from a vastly different angle unless you have the means to view the moon from that same angle.

However, note that I did provide such an angle from my model, and when viewing it from above, the moon did point to the sun.

You are merely making things up, in the desperate attempt to justify this.

Now stop with the dishonesty and either admit it is nothing more than an illusion and no problem for the RE or actually deal with the arguments presented.