Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Ladislaus on March 03, 2018, 07:58:11 PM
-
So, on the way home, the moon was relatively low on the horizon and it looked huge ... probably 4 - 5 times its normal size.
This has been referred to as the "Moon Illusion".
Science evidently can't explain it and have chalked it up as being a psychological phenomenon.
I call bull on that. There's no way this is psychological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
So what do flat earth proponents say about this? IMO is the moon is a relatively constant distance from the earth, there's no way it could ever look that big in the sky. Atmospheric refraction does not suffice as an explanation. Plus you could clearly see the moon's topography ... which is ridiculous if it's actually almost 250,000 miles away.
-
This remains "unexplained" by science ... but they start with the premise that the moon isn't actually closer to the observer.
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/blogs/why-nobody-can-explain-the-moon-illusion
-
I was on the way home from first Saturday Mass with my nephew and we saw exactly what you describe, to the tee. I would say that there could be some reflective work at hand since the color orangish and returned to beije once it returned to its normal size, but Im no expert.
-
Atmospheric refraction does not suffice as an explanation.
Why not?
-
Probably because atmospheric refraction is typically a very small effect.
Ladislaus, I think what is meant by psychological phenomenon is more optical illusion than anything. There are plenty of examples out there of optical illusions that can make things appear to be different sizes when they aren't (one example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbinghaus_illusion).
Simple experiment you can do to check this for yourself (I pulled this off some random website): "To see for yourself, take a sheet of paper and roll it up into a narrow tube. Point it at the rising Moon and adjust the tube's size until it's a little larger than the Moon's diameter. Tape the tube so its size stays the same and look at the Moon again a few hours later when it's higher in the sky. You'll see it fills the same space."
Note: I haven't tried this, but it seems to make sense. Let me know what you see if you get a chance to.
-
I remember there was a children's book I used to look at all those years ago. It had a train track draw at an angle and two bunnies on each end. One looked bigger and closer then the other, but if you got a ruler you could clearly see both bunnies were the same size. It was a perfect example of optical illusion.
So, I'm willing to believe there is maybe some amount of optical illusion involved here.
-
Here's an interesting theory:
"Secondly, to address issues regarding the size of the sun at its setting, it is necessary to read Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe:
CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN AT NOONDAY
IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light or "glare" upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour. The following diagram, fig. 66, will show also that, as the sun recedes from the meridian, over a plane surface, the light, as it strikes the atmosphere, must give a larger disc.
FIG. 66.
Let A, B, represent the upper stratum of the atmosphere; C, D, the surface of the earth; and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the sun, in his morning, forenoon, noon, afternoon, and evening positions. It is evident that when he is in the position 1, the disc of light projected upon the atmosphere at 6, is considerably larger than the disc projected from the forenoon position, 2, upon the atmosphere at 7; and the disc at 7 is larger than that formed at 8, when the sun, at 3, is on the meridian; when at 4, the disc at 9 is again larger; and when at 5, or in the evening, the disc at 10 is again as large as at 6, or the morning position. It is evident that the above results are what must of necessity occur if the sun's path, the line of atmosphere, and the earth's surface, are parallel and horizontal lines. That such results do constantly occur is a matter of everyday observation; and we may logically deduce front it a striking argument against the rotundity of the earth, and in favour of the contrary conclusion, that it is horizontal. The atmosphere surrounding a globe would not permit of anything like the same degree of enlargement of the sun when rising and setting, as we daily see in nature.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2007, 01:29:26 PM by Tom Bishop »"
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16229.0
-
I wonder if it is just closer though.
-
I was on the way home from first Saturday Mass with my nephew and we saw exactly what you describe, to the tee. I would say that there could be some reflective work at hand since the color orangish and returned to beije once it returned to its normal size, but Im no expert.
That's what I thought too, but then my wife told me she had read that it was only an "illusion". So I looked up "moon illusion" and found this. If you look at the scientific articles, they have ruled out atmospheric distortion, saying that dust in the atmosphere would actually make the moon look a bit smaller. And they also don't believe that refraction is the cause.
So they've chalked it up to some psychological optical illusion. But no one can quite explain how that works either ... they're just guessing. What's funny is that, with as advanced as they claim science has gotten, they simply can't convincingly explain this phenomenon.
-
Why not?
Not sure. But that's what the articles say. They also ruled out dust in the atmosphere, saying that dust would actually make the moon look smaller.
-
Ladislaus, I think what is meant by psychological phenomenon is more optical illusion than anything. There are plenty of examples out there of optical illusions that can make things appear to be different sizes when they aren't (one example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbinghaus_illusion).
Right, they're saying that ... but they still can't explain the precise mechanism for this optical illusion. If it were that simple, the question wouldn't remain "debated". And I think that is why they refer to it as psychological ... because no one can explain precisely how the optical illusion works. Most optical illusions can be explained.
-
Here's an interesting theory:
"Secondly, to address issues regarding the size of the sun at its setting, it is necessary to read Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe:
CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN AT NOONDAY
IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, ...
But they appear to have ruled this out for the "moon illusion" ... which is why they are calling it an optical illusion and psychological phenomenon.
-
I wonder if it is just closer though.
Yeah. Except they SAY that if you hold some object up to the moon when it's big like that and then do the same thing when it looks smaller, it'll still be covered up by the same length of the object. I'll try that at some point.
-
Basically, though, some flat earthers have made videos showing how if you take a good camera and zoom in on the moon, you can see remarkable detail of its topography. I find it difficult to believe that you could get that kind of detail when we're 238,000 miles away from the moon ... allegedly. On earth, the best cameras can't get anything but a blurry picture from more than a few miles away.
-
Here's an interesting theory:
"Secondly, to address issues regarding the size of the sun at its setting, it is necessary to read Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe:
CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN AT NOONDAY
IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light or "glare" upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour. The following diagram, fig. 66, will show also that, as the sun recedes from the meridian, over a plane surface, the light, as it strikes the atmosphere, must give a larger disc.
FIG. 66.
Let A, B, represent the upper stratum of the atmosphere; C, D, the surface of the earth; and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the sun, in his morning, forenoon, noon, afternoon, and evening positions. It is evident that when he is in the position 1, the disc of light projected upon the atmosphere at 6, is considerably larger than the disc projected from the forenoon position, 2, upon the atmosphere at 7; and the disc at 7 is larger than that formed at 8, when the sun, at 3, is on the meridian; when at 4, the disc at 9 is again larger; and when at 5, or in the evening, the disc at 10 is again as large as at 6, or the morning position. It is evident that the above results are what must of necessity occur if the sun's path, the line of atmosphere, and the earth's surface, are parallel and horizontal lines. That such results do constantly occur is a matter of everyday observation; and we may logically deduce front it a striking argument against the rotundity of the earth, and in favour of the contrary conclusion, that it is horizontal. The atmosphere surrounding a globe would not permit of anything like the same degree of enlargement of the sun when rising and setting, as we daily see in nature.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2007, 01:29:26 PM by Tom Bishop »"
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16229.0
This is the correct explanation.
You are viewing it, at rise & set, thru the water vapor of the atmosphere, along the horizon, therefore the thickest continuous layer of vapor.
Like when you stick your finger in a glass of water and it makes your finger look bigger than it really is.
When the moon is at zenith you are only looking thru a thin layer of atmosphere.
Also, in FE model the moon is at its closest distance at zenith, and is at its furthest distance at rise and set.
-
This is the correct explanation.
Except that this has been dismissed by scientists based on the fact that if you actually measure the moon it's not REALLY any bigger ... so they say. That's why the consensus is for optical illusion.
I was actually looking for a flat-earth take on this. According to flat earth theory, the moon does indeed get significantly closer to and farther from people at any given time ... so it's size SHOULD change. But if it's true that the size of the moon does NOT actually change from the perspective of the observer, then the flat earth explanation of how the moon moves must be considered wrong, no?
-
Basically, though, some flat earthers have made videos showing how if you take a good camera and zoom in on the moon, you can see remarkable detail of its topography. I find it difficult to believe that you could get that kind of detail when we're 238,000 miles away from the moon ... allegedly. On earth, the best cameras can't get anything but a blurry picture from more than a few miles away.
I have heard that even today's amateur telescopes are good enough to show some details on the moon. I didn't pay too much attention at the time but I think it was in an astrophotography docuмentary that I watched a few months ago.
I have always assumed that the changing size of the moon is an optical illusion, some full moons at rising, at least here in the desert look HUGE, like if you hold a dinner plate at arms length up to the sky, other months it looks more like the diameter of a mug. I don't think the earth or the moon are actually moving closer or farther apart so I just figured it must be an optical illusion based on something I didn't understand.
-
Yeah. Except they SAY that if you hold some object up to the moon when it's big like that and then do the same thing when it looks smaller, it'll still be covered up by the same length of the object. I'll try that at some point.
Yeah, I'd like to see that too.
-
Basically, though, some flat earthers have made videos showing how if you take a good camera and zoom in on the moon, you can see remarkable detail of its topography. I find it difficult to believe that you could get that kind of detail when we're 238,000 miles away from the moon ... allegedly. On earth, the best cameras can't get anything but a blurry picture from more than a few miles away.
That does seem pretty fantastic.
-
Except that this has been dismissed by scientists based on the fact that if you actually measure the moon it's not REALLY any bigger ... so they say. That's why the consensus is for optical illusion.
I was actually looking for a flat-earth take on this. According to flat earth theory, the moon does indeed get significantly closer to and farther from people at any given time ... so it's size SHOULD change. But if it's true that the size of the moon does NOT actually change from the perspective of the observer, then the flat earth explanation of how the moon moves must be considered wrong, no?
.
Correct. It must be considered wrong, on the face of observations cited.
.
If the moon is always further away from us as it rises and sets, it would never appear larger at those times.
.
The flat-earthers claim the sun and moon BOTH get "smaller" as they approach the horizon, because according to their hypothesis, in absence of any working model (while they claim they're not in need of any good model, no way, no how), the sun and moon get FURTHER AWAY from the viewer at sunset and moonset. The logical extension of this is obviously that the sun and moon BEGIN to rise in the east further away from the viewer. But they neglect to talk about that since it only further hurts their flimsy case.
.
The phenomenon you have noticed occurs occasionally, and I agree with you that "there is no way this can be an illusion."
.
I don't claim to be able to explain it either, but like you I have noticed it. About a handful of times in my life I have seen the moon appearing to be literally twice its normal size for a brief time as it rises in the east. As I recall it's at or near the full moon phase when I have seen this but I haven't paid attention to whether it is before, during or after the full moon proper.
.
As I recall, this has been in the early evening, which makes sense if it's a full moon or close to it, and it is always in the east and never in the west (as the full moon sets). But I could be wrong. I'm just recalling what I remember offhand.
.
-
Basically, though, some flat earthers have made videos showing how if you take a good camera and zoom in on the moon, you can see remarkable detail of its topography. I find it difficult to believe that you could get that kind of detail when we're 238,000 miles away from the moon ... allegedly. On earth, the best cameras can't get anything but a blurry picture from more than a few miles away.
.
To settle your questions, I recommend finding an astronomy club meeting in a shopping center parking lot in the evening (for example) with dozens of fancy telescopes set up, trained on you-name-it.
.
If it's a full moon, some will have their sights set on the moon and they are more than happy to answer all your questions. Some have elaborate photographic capability and can show you RIGHT NOW displays on their laptop screens of closeups of the moon as it happens.
.
The best of them, with maximum magnification, cannot pick out fine details like the shape of car-sized boulders on the moon.
.
The reason is, the moon is simply too far away to get such details.
.
Plus, we are looking through the earth's atmosphere, which inherently involves some distortion, even on the clearest nights.
.
You can ask them if any of them have seen or have heard of others seeing any of the physical remains of moon landings. Their answer is a unanimous "no." The lunar landers left behind are simply not big enough to be distinguished from large rocks, and obviously the rovers and their tracks, or flags, or footprints are likewise too small.
.
But one thing can be seen. There are omnidirectional reflectors left behind which act like mirrors that return to the source in any direction the light that is shined on them, just as highway signs reflect your headlights regardless of from which direction you are approaching them. This is a simple, static prism arrangement of cells that always does the same thing: reflects light back to the source shining on it.
.
This is how very precise measurements are possible, measuring to within a fraction of an inch the distance to the moon's reflector(s) at any given moment. This is how we can know that the moon is very gradually moving further away from earth, curiously. The same devices are used by surveyors to measure distances to objects on earth. But the equipment used for moon shots have more powerful lasers and you need to have special qualification to use them since if you accidentally shoot one at an airplane you could blind the pilot.
.
-
Except that this has been dismissed by scientists based on the fact that if you actually measure the moon it's not REALLY any bigger ... so they say. That's why the consensus is for optical illusion.
I was actually looking for a flat-earth take on this. According to flat earth theory, the moon does indeed get significantly closer to and farther from people at any given time ... so it's size SHOULD change. But if it's true that the size of the moon does NOT actually change from the perspective of the observer, then the flat earth explanation of how the moon moves must be considered wrong, no?
Atmospheric lensing thru vapor IS an optical illusion.
Ask yourself this:
Does your finger REALLY get bigger when you stick it in a glass of water?
No. It only appears that way.
Does the street lamp REALLY get bigger on a foggy night, as in the other example?
No.
It only appears bigger.
-
Atmospheric lensing thru vapor IS an optical illusion.
Ask yourself this:
Does your finger REALLY get bigger when you stick it in a glass of water?
No. It only appears that way.
Does the street lamp REALLY get bigger on a foggy night, as in the other example?
No.
It only appears bigger.
But doesn't this seriously HURT the case for flat earth? If the moon gets significantly closer to us when it's overhead, since it's closer, its size should change measurably as it's moving around.
-
But doesn't this seriously HURT the case for flat earth? If the moon gets significantly closer to us when it's overhead, since it's closer, its size should change measurably as it's moving around.
No because average distance to horizon is only 10-30 miles.
-
Example:
Flat earth diagram is an x-y graph.
Your position is at zero.
Moon rises in east at 2 degree.
Moon zenith is at 90 degrees.
Moon set in west is at 180 degrees.
Moon tracks in a level line above always, so farthest distance from zero is at rise and set, closest distance is at zenith.
But that doesn't mean you CAN see to the farthest actual distance at rise and set. You can only see to your horizon, due to perspective which averages 10-30 miles.
You can see the entire distance at zenith because there is no horizon blocking your view
-
Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 07:34:08 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/moon-illusion/msg597859/#msg597859)
But doesn't this seriously HURT the case for flat earth? If the moon gets significantly closer to us when it's overhead, since it's closer, its size should change measurably as it's moving around.
No because average distance to horizon is only 10-30 miles.
.
What a load of horse hockey.
.
The moon and the sun each take a whole DAY to traverse the sky from horizon east to horizon west.
Then you claim that's "only 10-30 miles" away?
So the sun and moon travel at MOST 60 miles but take all day long to do so?
Give me a break.
You flat-earthers have a LOT of work to do.
Do you enjoy sticking your foot in your mouth?
Must be really fun or something cause you're doing it ALL THE TIME. :facepalm:
-
No because average distance to horizon is only 10-30 miles.
.
What a load of horse hockey.
.
The moon and the sun each take a whole DAY to traverse the sky from horizon east to horizon west.
Then you claim that's "only 10-30 miles" away?
So the sun and moon travel at MOST 60 miles but take all day long to do so?
Give me a break.
You flat-earthers have a LOT of work to do.
Do you enjoy sticking your foot in your mouth?
Must be really fun or something cause you're doing it ALL THE TIME. :facepalm:
No dummy.
Not what I said.
The average distance to the horizon at any location is 10-30 miles.
That's as far as you can see with your eyes.
I have no idea what the actual altitude of the moon is, but I know it's not 238, 000 miles.
The sun and moon are traveling 25, 000 miles in their circuit each day over the earth.
-
No because average distance to horizon is only 10-30 miles.
So you're saying that we never see the moon except when it's closer than 30 miles from us?
-
So you're saying that we never see the moon except when it's closer than 30 miles from us?
As the moon is traveling in its level path in its circuit above the flat plane of earth you will not -cannot- see it until it rises on your horizon at your particular location.
For most locations, the average distance to the horizon is 10-30 miles.
You can measure this for yourself with known landmarks at your locatio
Example: at my western horizon is a particular mountain: that mountain is 30 miles from my house.
-
Also, it is helpful to remember the Vandenberg rocket launch filmed from Phoenix to understand how altitude affects the visibility of an object breaking over your local horizon.
The rocket was going upward higher than a plane. Therefore, it was visible over a greater distance. If it was at a lower altitude the angle would have been too low to see it from Phoenix 400 miles away.
That's how we know the sun and moon are at a very high altitude.
-
Also, it is helpful to remember the Vandenberg rocket launch filmed from Phoenix to understand how altitude affects the visibility of an object breaking over your local horizon.
The rocket was going upward higher than a plane. Therefore, it was visible over a greater distance. If it was at a lower altitude the angle would have been too low to see it from Phoenix 400 miles away.
That's how we know the sun and moon are at a very high altitude.
.
As the moon is traveling in its level path in its circuit above the flat plane of earth you will not -cannot- see it until it rises on your horizon at your particular location.
For most locations, the average distance to the horizon is 10-30 miles.
You can measure this for yourself with known landmarks at your locatio
Example: at my western horizon is a particular mountain: that mountain is 30 miles from my house.
.
So you can't see further than 30 miles like the mountain near your house. Fine.
.
But then you CAN see a rocket from Vandenberg 400 miles away.
.
Oh, but that's not contradicting yourself, because flat-earthers never contradict themselves, by what, definition?
.
Ipso facto -- flat-earthers are always right according that is, to flat-earthers, who have their own reality.
.
Check.
-
Try this on for size:
.
The reason you can't see further than 30 miles on the "flat" surface of the earth is: the earth isn't "flat."
.
If you want to see further than 30 miles, just climb up to the top of a high mountain, like I have.
.
From the top of Mt. Whitney in the Sierra Nevada mountains, you can see over 100 miles into the California/Nevada desert.
.
And a level line of sight from the summit (14,500') is well up into the CLOUDS above the curvature of the spheroid earth.
.
-
Try this on for size:
.
The reason you can't see further than 30 miles on the "flat" surface of the earth is: the earth isn't "flat."
.
If you want to see further than 30 miles, just climb up to the top of a high mountain, like I have.
.
From the top of Mt. Whitney in the Sierra Nevada mountains, you can see over 100 miles into the California/Nevada desert.
.
And a level line of sight from the summit (14,500') is well up into the CLOUDS above the curvature of the spheroid earth.
.
Hey dummy, try this on for size:
The ROCKET IS THE MOUNTAIN.
Your scenario is reversed in the rocket launch:
People on the ground can see the rocket because it attained a very high altitude, much higher than a mountain.
Neil is not known for his critical thinking skills.
-
So, if I were to climb a mountain, I should be able to see the moon much farther away, and its size should be significantly smaller, right?
vs. if it's really 238,000 miles away, then it wouldn't change much (not measurably) as it moves across the sky.
-
So, if I were to climb a mountain, I should be able to see the moon much farther away, and its size should be significantly smaller, right?
vs. if it's really 238,000 miles away, then it wouldn't change much (not measurably) as it moves across the sky.
No.
Climbing the mountain (or elevating a rocket) merely extends your horizon.
Climbing the mountain only brings you a couple thousand feet closer, which will not change its size appearance.
Think ofbit this way: let's suppose the moon is close, only 2,000 miles instead of 238k.
We know because of the visible naked eye detail.
This distance is the vertical y-axis altitude at zenith. But when the moon is on the opposite side of the plane from our location the "c" side of the triangles' distance is greater than 2,000.
-
No.
Climbing the mountain (or elevating a rocket) merely extends your horizon.
.
Let's see, you climb up to the top of a mountain and you can then see the horizon recede away from you.
.
Your horizon is extended because you can see further over the earth's curvature.
.
In fact, you can MEASURE it with a level scope -- which you don't understand how to use, but I do.
.
This isn't rocket science (even when viewed from a rocket -- where the level scope doesn't work).
.
-
So, if I were to climb a mountain, I should be able to see the moon much farther away, and its size should be significantly smaller, right?
vs. if it's really 238,000 miles away, then it wouldn't change much (not measurably) as it moves across the sky.
.
The moon is visible further over the horizon when you climb a mountain because you're seeing past the earth's curvature more from up high than you were from down low.
.
But the moon might sometimes appear larger near the horizon due to some kind of atmospheric enlargement, as we discussed in another place here (another thread?).
.
But given any particular day/night, the moon's size as it traverses high in the sky is always the same -- not sometimes but always.
.
When flat-earthers say the moon is 3,000 miles high (but they can't agree and have no way of measuring it) when it moves from east to west it should be twice as big mid-way because it's twice as close then, and that would ALWAYS be the case. But it NEVER is.
.
It must be really depressing to be a flat-earther and have to lose every single time.
-
When flat-earthers say the moon is 3,000 miles high (but they can't agree and have no way of measuring it) when it moves from east to west it should be twice as big mid-way because it's twice as close then, and that would ALWAYS be the case. But it NEVER is.
Right, and that was my point. This seems to be a strong argument against flat earth. Now, Smedley responded that you can only see the moon from 30 miles away. But, then, what's going on when it appears to rise and set below the horizon? If it were merely converging with the horizon, you wouldn't see it where half of the moon is hidden beneath the horizon but the other have clearly visible.
-
Right, and that was my point. This seems to be a strong argument against flat earth.
Now, Smedley responded that you can only see the moon from 30 miles away. But, then, what's going on when it appears to rise and set below the horizon? If it were merely converging with the horizon, you wouldn't see it where half of the moon is hidden beneath the horizon but the other [half] clearly visible.
.
Smedley is caught in his own web of deception, hurling insults when his state of frustration has been exposed.
.
It's just pathetic to see them trying to talk their way out of the hole they dug for themselves.
.
If you can only see 30 miles away then why can we see the sun in the daytime and stars at night?
He's attempting to limit our vision to 30 miles because then he doesn't have to contend with earth's curvature.
It's a case of inside-out thinking, so he accuses others of poor comprehension. Okaaaay.
The sun and stars both rise in the east and set in the west, often at 70-80 degrees from the horizontal.
Then he said, "the ROCKET IS THE MOUNTAIN," which I have to admit, is a novel concept.
Apparently he can't tell the difference between a rocket and a mountain.
.
Sad. :(
-
.
.
.
wrong thread
-
Neil is painfully stupid.
It doesn't matter if your example of gaing altitude is a rocket or a mountain top, both extend yoir horizon's visibility.
The actual distance difference though is small. You would not perceive a size difference by adding only 30 miles at that scale.
This also how we can tellthe sun and moon are the same size and not dissimilar altitudes.
-
.
You're making quite an impressive record for yourself!
.
No dummy.
Hey dummy, try this on for size:
The ROCKET IS THE MOUNTAIN.
Neil is not known for his critical thinking skills.
Neil is painfully stupid.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3niFzo5VLI
It's a Tesla, Of course! :jester: