Why doesn't the MOON get smaller?

OK. So, you FE'ers have been asked why the sun appears to stay the same size as it sets, despite the fact that it is moving further away. Your reply was that the atmospheric glow made it appear larger as it sets because the light has to travel through more atmosphere, much like the glow around a street-light.

Well, anyone with the right telescope can see that this explanation is crap, but u won't believe scientists and astronomers and such people, so answer this:

Why does the MOON not look smaller as it sets? It follows a similar path to the sun (so you claim), so should look smaller as it sets. It doesn't.

And DON'T say "same reason", because even on the horizon the moon can be seen to be made up of rock and cheese and craters and things, not atmosperic glow. Even with a naked eye.

Good topic. Worthy of discussion.

Unfortunately, I have a funny feeling the the FE'ers will 'not notice' this thread.

I suggest a "Lens object" that orbits the moon twice a day, making it appear the same size when rising, moving over the sky and setting.

I suggest a "Lens object" that orbits the moon twice a day, making it appear the same size when rising, moving over the sky and setting.

hahaha. Not so different from a shadow object-- Good call.

OK. So, you FE'ers have been asked why the sun appears to stay the same size as it sets, despite the fact that it is moving further away. Your reply was that the atmospheric glow made it appear larger as it sets because the light has to travel through more atmosphere, much like the glow around a street-light.

Well, anyone with the right telescope can see that this explanation is crap, but u won't believe scientists and astronomers and such people, so answer this:

Why does the MOON not look smaller as it sets? It follows a similar path to the sun (so you claim), so should look smaller as it sets. It doesn't.

And DON'T say "same reason", because even on the horizon the moon can be seen to be made up of rock and cheese and craters and things, not atmosperic glow. Even with a naked eye.

All explained in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

Quote from: ghazwozza on February 20, 2008, 07:02:28 AM

OK. So, you FE'ers have been asked why the sun appears to stay the same size as it sets, despite the fact that it is moving further away. Your reply was that the atmospheric glow made it appear larger as it sets because the light has to travel through more atmosphere, much like the glow around a street-light.

Well, anyone with the right telescope can see that this explanation is crap, but u won't believe scientists and astronomers and such people, so answer this:

Why does the MOON not look smaller as it sets? It follows a similar path to the sun (so you claim), so should look smaller as it sets. It doesn't.

And DON'T say "same reason", because even on the horizon the moon can be seen to be made up of rock and cheese and craters and things, not atmosperic glow. Even with a naked eye.

All explained in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

I still prefer the lens object idea.

Quote from: ghazwozza on February 20, 2008, 07:02:28 AM

OK. So, you FE'ers have been asked why the sun appears to stay the same size as it sets, despite the fact that it is moving further away. Your reply was that the atmospheric glow made it appear larger as it sets because the light has to travel through more atmosphere, much like the glow around a street-light.

Well, anyone with the right telescope can see that this explanation is crap, but u won't believe scientists and astronomers and such people, so answer this:

Why does the MOON not look smaller as it sets? It follows a similar path to the sun (so you claim), so should look smaller as it sets. It doesn't.

And DON'T say "same reason", because even on the horizon the moon can be seen to be made up of rock and cheese and craters and things, not atmosperic glow. Even with a naked eye.

All explained in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

Do you have a more detailed copy of the book?  Because the link from the FAQ only mentions the sun.
The lens object is clearly a much better explanation. 

Come on Tom, the lens object is the best idea since the antimoon.
It's not too big a stretch to go from a shadow object to a lens object.

All explained in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

It's definitely not explained in chapter 10, as I keep pointing out.  To the observer in the middle, the angular diameter (e.g. in degrees, looking up) of the projection is the same as the angular diameter of the sun.  The diagram actually demonstrates this:



To put is another way:  The long projection the sun is portrayed as casting on the upper-atmosphere will be re-compressed by the effect of perspective from the observer to the projection.  Therefore the projection will give the observer absolutely nothing. 

You still have not provided me with an explanation of where I am going wrong here, Tom.

As demonstrated here, Tom Bishop is a bot.

The moon is just the back of the sun. Obviously.

The moon is just the back of the sun. Obviously.

Yeah, and if you see the moon during the day, that's just a big mirror-object that orbits far above the sun.

Wow, FE theory is filled with so many amazingly low-probability coincidences.  That the Sun and Moon will orbit by some impossible force over the direct center of a circle, what is causing that orbit around such an insignificant part.  There is no force that will do that.
That is only one, but I am too tired to look up more.

Wow, FE theory is filled with so many amazingly low-probability coincidences.  That the Sun and Moon will orbit by some impossible force over the direct center of a circle, what is causing that orbit around such an insignificant part.  There is no force that will do that.
That is only one, but I am too tired to look up more.

Don't forget how the radius of said orbit magically changes to cause the seasons. 

Well, yes. Orbit magically changes to cause seasons, but at least it is a plausible explanation of seasons.

Maybe somebody has a picture or a scheme where it would shown completely clear how seasons are created in RE?
And a picture or a scheme of Earth motion around the Sun - to show each position of Earth towards the Sun in winter, summer and so on.

it WILL be interesting to examine that too!

For the record, Mr. Bishop referred me to chapter X of The Earth not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm)

I read this through once. I read it again. I did not understand it. Then I realised -- this was because IT DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.

Having waded through the optics module of my Uni course, I feel I am qualified to disuss this topic, probably more so than most of the FE'ers. So where to start with this dreadful explanation?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig66.jpg

The fundamental premise is completely wrong. The lines drawn in that diagram are imaginary. They do not represent anything physical (apart form the path of a light ray from the edge of the sun to the observer, which doesn't have any special significance).

The sun (or moon) does not 'project' onto the atmosphere, and certainly not in the way that diagram shows. Could Mr. Bishop provide a more clear and workable explanation for why the moon doesn't get smaller as it sets, in his own words, without referencing this poorly-written book?

The short answer would be no

For the record, Mr. Bishop referred me to chapter X of The Earth not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm)

I read this through once. I read it again. I did not understand it. Then I realised -- this was because IT DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.

Having waded through the optics module of my Uni course, I feel I am qualified to disuss this topic, probably more so than most of the FE'ers. So where to start with this dreadful explanation?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig66.jpg

The fundamental premise is completely wrong. The lines drawn in that diagram are imaginary. They do not represent anything physical (apart form the path of a light ray from the edge of the sun to the observer, which doesn't have any special significance).

The sun (or moon) does not 'project' onto the atmosphere, and certainly not in the way that diagram shows. Could Mr. Bishop provide a more clear and workable explanation for why the moon doesn't get smaller as it sets, in his own words, without referencing this poorly-written book?

The short answer would be no

Hahahaha, man that cracked me up.