The Moon Illustion

In 2000, two IBM folks solved the illusion problem. In 2004, another
fellow, Don McReady at the U of Wisconsin, proposed another solution.
What's the status of these attempts at the present?

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:09:32 AM UTC+1, W. eWatson wrote:
In 2000, two IBM folks solved the illusion problem. In 2004, another

fellow, Don McReady at the U of Wisconsin, proposed another solution.

What's the status of these attempts at the present?

Empiricists believe the moon spins for goodness sake and that is insanity.

On 6/25/13 2:07 AM, oriel36 wrote:


Empiricists believe the moon spins for goodness sake and that is insanity.



Equatorial rotation velocity of the moon is 4.627 m/s
Equatorial radius is 1738.14 km

Using the definition of Angular Velocity

ω = v/r

where ω is the angular (rotational) velocity, v is the tangential
equatorial velocity and r is the equatorial radius of the moon.

Sample Calculation
http://www.google.com/search?q=4.627...%2F+1738.14+km

Resulting in
Lunar angular velocity = 2.662 X 10^-6 Rad/s
which comes out to be 2360000 seconds (27.32 days) for
a 2π (360°) rotation.

Which just happens to be VERY CLOSE to the lunar orbital sidereal
month of 27.321662 days as noted in the Astronomical Almanac. Gee
what a coincidence! Given a bit of Libration due to the eccentricity
of the moon's orbit, the moon tends to keep the same side pointed
toward the earth.

Sample Calculation

http://www.google.com/search?q=360+d...s%2Fs)+in+days

Bye Gerald.

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:59:31 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:

Equatorial rotation velocity of the moon is 4.627 m/s

Bye Gerald.

Kepler,whom empiricists rely heavily had this to say -

"The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

Galileo who discuss the moon extensively in his Starry Messenger not once talks of a spinning moon and why should he ?-

http://www.archive.org/stream/sidere...ge/n7/mode/2up

Sir Isaac got tangled up in astronomical lingo which distinguishes rotation from revolution and took the latter for rotation whereas Kepler uses the revolving moon in terms of its orbital motion through space -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJ...ge&q&f=fa lse

It is not just the principle that the moon has no spinning motion,it is what people are prepared to do to uphold the dictates of one person in the late 17th century and nobody else who demanded of his followers that the moon spins and you still follow him.

I broke the cycle of indoctrination Wormley and your empirical assault against common sense.

On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:09:32 PM UTC-7, W. eWatson wrote:
In 2000, two IBM folks solved the illusion problem. In 2004, another

fellow, Don McReady at the U of Wisconsin, proposed another solution.

What's the status of these attempts at the present?

From January 2013 there is this...

http://tinyurl.com/a7gerre

I especially like the exercise reported near the bottom of the page, where it is claimed that if the moon illusion is observed while standing on your head, it vanishes!

\Paul A

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:07:24 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote, in part:

Empiricists believe the moon spins for goodness sake and that is insanity.

Nope. Libration in longitude is real. Sometimes things aren't the way
they seem, on the surface, "obviously" to be. That's not insanity; such
subtlety is a necessary condition of scientific progress.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Newton and his empirical drones couldn't read the astronomical texts properly and mistook revolution (orbital motion) for rotation -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJ...ge&q&f=fa lse


http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...page&q&f=false


Again,a dystopian society that believes the moon spins with absolutely nobody reading this with the slightest bit of common sense let alone the ability to conceive why it is important.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

Newton and his empirical drones couldn't read the astronomical texts
properly and mistook revolution (orbital motion) for rotation -
========================================
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath

Oriel36 the dull empirical drone couldn't read the astronomical texts
properly and mistook rotation (spin) for the Moon "illustion".

Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!
gasp for breath

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the idiots papacrappa and Dork Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:09:32 AM UTC-4, W. eWatson wrote:
In 2000, two IBM folks solved the illusion problem. In 2004, another

fellow, Don McReady at the U of Wisconsin, proposed another solution.

What's the status of these attempts at the present?

The Moon illusion is usually poorly phrased; for example, "Why does the Moon always appear so much larger near the horizon?"

It doesn't appear "larger" near the horizon. The size that it appears there is its _normal_ size.

When it is higher in the sky it appears "smaller" simply because, at only 1/2 degree in apparent diameter, the Moon does indeed appear small and there is usually nothing up there with which to compare it.

It has been said that the illusion disappears and the Moon near the horizon appears "smaller" if you view the scene upside-down. In that case -everything- in view will probably seem smaller, but few seem to pay attention to that.