Magnification Of The Sun/Moon Near The Horizon

gelk1984 wrote:

tycho_brahe wrote:

gelk1984 wrote:I’m struggling to understand the moon, it looks bright like a luminary however when it’s zoomed in on the light disappears and it looks then like a grey rock. Does anyone have an explanation for why the light from the moon disappears when zoomed in?

I don’t think it’s a question of the moon “losing” its light but more about the mechanics of a camera. Aperture will adjust with a bright object. If you aim your mobile phone camera to the TV it first appears as a blinding white light and then it adjusts to the image detail expected. You can try that experiment at home. Same with the sun. We can barely look at the sun with the naked eye for less then a second however we can observe time-lapse videos or photos of the sun. Also moonlight and sunlight have different properties.

A great thread and video on the different properties between the sun and moon.

https://ifers.forumotion.com/t16-the-flat-moon-over-the-flat-earth

This is true regarding the camera but zoom in on the sun and the light doesn’t disappear like the moon. This tells me that the moon simply isn’t its own light source like the sun is, and it looks just like a physical rock. This is one part of following/learning flat earth theory that I just can’t subscribe to, I see no evidence that it’s anything other than a rock

Did you click on the link I provided? Scientifically speaking we can rule out "reflected" light from the moon easier than a self-luminous moon. Read through the provided link. It completely rules out sun reflected light. Moonlight is a completely different.

A quote from within the linked thread:

"So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties, and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light! Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection."

I invite you to click on the thread it's an eyeopening read.

The billboard comparison works if the Moon is an object. We have to think that the Moon is an object because there are so-called 'amateur' pictures of tracks left by the Apollo landing. Unless the 'tracks' were always there and we are being fooled, the Moon could be a hologram if this is the case.

I never saw the tracks using equipment at hand.

We've got phosphorescent paint on Earth. An explanation for light could be the Moon has a phosphorescent covering of some kind.

The Moon could be a projection onto an object.  Like a movie is projected onto an Imax Dome.

A group of men told us they left tracks and stuff on the Moon.  We have to verify the tracks and stuff is there; and the tracks and stuff wasn't there before they told us they left it there.  

Right now .gov is the only group with tools to tell us what's there.  So we've got a feedback loop.  Should we believe their dot?


July 17, 2009

"Fact is, not even the Hubble telescope or lunar orbiters have had optics good enough to see anything that humans left on the Moon.

Until now. On June 18th NASA launched its new Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), designed in part to scout future landing sites. It worked its way down into low lunar orbit and has started taking pictures with both its wide-angle and narrow-angle cameras. The latter are designed to achieve a pixel resolution of 1 meter (3 feet) on the ground."

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/apollo-landers-seen-on-the-moon/

Sorry guys I’ll respond to everyone’s replies once I’ve looked at the things you’ve all provided.

I will say that photo of the dot on the moon proves nothing, I can look at the moon from my garden with a telescope and see more detail than they have provided

tycho_brahe wrote:

gelk1984 wrote:

tycho_brahe wrote:

gelk1984 wrote:I’m struggling to understand the moon, it looks bright like a luminary however when it’s zoomed in on the light disappears and it looks then like a grey rock. Does anyone have an explanation for why the light from the moon disappears when zoomed in?

I don’t think it’s a question of the moon “losing” its light but more about the mechanics of a camera. Aperture will adjust with a bright object. If you aim your mobile phone camera to the TV it first appears as a blinding white light and then it adjusts to the image detail expected. You can try that experiment at home. Same with the sun. We can barely look at the sun with the naked eye for less then a second however we can observe time-lapse videos or photos of the sun. Also moonlight and sunlight have different properties.

A great thread and video on the different properties between the sun and moon.

https://ifers.forumotion.com/t16-the-flat-moon-over-the-flat-earth

This is true regarding the camera but zoom in on the sun and the light doesn’t disappear like the moon. This tells me that the moon simply isn’t its own light source like the sun is, and it looks just like a physical rock. This is one part of following/learning flat earth theory that I just can’t subscribe to, I see no evidence that it’s anything other than a rock

Did you click on the link I provided?  Scientifically speaking we can rule out "reflected" light from the moon easier than a self-luminous moon.  Read through the provided link.  It completely rules out sun reflected light.  Moonlight is a completely different.  

A quote from within the linked thread:

"So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties, and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light!  Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection."

I invite you to click on the thread it's an eyeopening read.  

Apologies for the delay responding.

Interesting read there on the moonlight, it makes sense that it can’t reflect sunlight if it’s a ball. Very interesting about the temperature as well, surely if it was reflecting the suns warm light the moon light would at least be a little warm and not strangely colder than a shade.

It brings me back to questioning then what it actually is. Nobody has an answer for this, and I don’t suppose we can get a true factual answer at this point.

One thing that’s baffling me, if people have seen stars through the moon are we even sure it was seen through the moon and it wasn’t another light in front of the moon? I say this because I’ve zoomed in on the moon myself and I still see it as a physical object, it looks solid, looks rocky and has hills and valleys on it, nothing moves or changes to suggest it’s a plasma for example and I’ve heard stories that people say that it “rings like a bell”. The colour photo someone else posted showing that it could even be metallic marries up with that speculation.

colander bowl wrote:The Moon could be a projection onto an object.  Like a movie is projected onto an Imax Dome.

A group of men told us they left tracks and stuff on the Moon.  We have to verify the tracks and stuff is there; and the tracks and stuff wasn't there before they told us they left it there.  

Right now .gov is the only group with tools to tell us what's there.  So we've got a feedback loop.  Should we believe their dot?


July 17, 2009

"Fact is, not even the Hubble telescope or lunar orbiters have had optics good enough to see anything that humans left on the Moon.

Until now. On June 18th NASA launched its new Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), designed in part to scout future landing sites. It worked its way down into low lunar orbit and has started taking pictures with both its wide-angle and narrow-angle cameras. The latter are designed to achieve a pixel resolution of 1 meter (3 feet) on the ground."

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/apollo-landers-seen-on-the-moon/

Amazing how these photos from nasa with their apparently extremely strong telescopes and lenses still can’t produce a detailed image of what that item is where the arrow is pointing, everything is always low quality, blurry or too far away.

You know I noticed something when looking at some of the earth composites, one where they claimed it’s a real photo from a million miles away; I don’t believe that’s a photo from that distance for a start, but it’s strange how this so called photo is completely missing all of the thousands of apparent satellites orbiting the earth! They managed to get some detail of clouds and other bits yet no sign of these satellites above the clouds, not even one dot!

This is an interesting objection to the Sunset problem. The minimum angular elevation, given the alleged height of the sun, and the distance of the earth presents a problem for the FE. Check this out.

https://mctoon.net/febs6/?fbclid=IwAR2XKU4rmXPRCJqTIK_qIWiq9EK_YFBd6OgDCC9pFjSkqEmIHygIfFh6340

How does the sun manage to drop out of sight, below the horizon?

bandrig wrote:This is an interesting objection to the Sunset problem. The minimum angular elevation, given the alleged height of the sun, and the distance of the earth presents a problem for the FE. Check this out.

https://mctoon.net/febs6/?fbclid=IwAR2XKU4rmXPRCJqTIK_qIWiq9EK_YFBd6OgDCC9pFjSkqEmIHygIfFh6340

How does the sun manage to drop out of sight, below the horizon?

All he did was calculate the angle of the sun based on known distances using geometry and then added above horizon after inferring that means it’s visible. The sun is always overhead and giving the angle is not proof of its visibility.

I found a video with an experiment of atmospheric magnification by Rob Skiba:


Also this example of an experiment by a Russian dude (Vitasik1275) using a Fresnel lens: