Moon illusion

Androcles wrote:
"Rama" wrote in message
...
| 1. It is said that moon illusion is psychological perception, not
| physical i.e it got nothing to do with atmospheric refraction.
| 2. The horizone full moon is at farther distance compared to overhead
| moon. This variation in distance is physical.

By one Earth radius, and anyway the moon appears larger
near the horizon than overhead.
It should appear smaller, therefore the effect is psychological.
The reason it appears larger is the background, the effect is in
photographs, too.


| So as moon illusion is psychological, it should work if earth itself
| is removed. Now just observer(you) in space. Imagine one moon at
| distance of 390,000 km straight before your eyes(horizone moon) and
| second moon at distance of 384,000 km above (overhead moon).
|
| As moon illusion is psychological, 'horizone moon' should look larger
| than 'overhead moon'.
|
It does. shrug

| On same logic, any distant object in space should look larger than
| closer object.
|
| Please point out any mistake.
|
The moon only seems larger when compared to trees, houses, objects
that are on the ground. By looking through a tube to hide them the
effect goes away. Holding your thumb up (or a coin) at arms length
to obscure the moon will quickly show you the size is the same on the
horizon or overhead.

I just recalled childhood Kaleidoscope box, Teleidoscope box whateve.
Look in box through short tube with magnifying lens at other end of
tube. Film looks small near the lense. Take film away and lense
enlarge it. But I was still able to look enlarged film through tube.

Now please don't say that size of moon is reduced after looking
through tube. Consider that moon is behind some object and only edges
of moon are visible. If you say that size(circumference) of moon is
reduced then due to object moon will be completely hidden. You were
seeing light from edges of moon without tube. With tube, you should
see just darkness. Obviously, this does not happen.

We can't destroy light with tube.

"Rama" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Rama" wrote in message
|
...
| | 1. It is said that moon illusion is psychological perception, not
| | physical i.e it got nothing to do with atmospheric refraction.
| | 2. The horizone full moon is at farther distance compared to overhead
| | moon. This variation in distance is physical.
|
| By one Earth radius, and anyway the moon appears larger
| near the horizon than overhead.
| It should appear smaller, therefore the effect is psychological.
| The reason it appears larger is the background, the effect is in
| photographs, too.
|
|
| | So as moon illusion is psychological, it should work if earth itself
| | is removed. Now just observer(you) in space. Imagine one moon at
| | distance of 390,000 km straight before your eyes(horizone moon) and
| | second moon at distance of 384,000 km above (overhead moon).
| |
| | As moon illusion is psychological, 'horizone moon' should look larger
| | than 'overhead moon'.
| |
| It does. shrug
|
| | On same logic, any distant object in space should look larger than
| | closer object.
| |
| | Please point out any mistake.
| |
| The moon only seems larger when compared to trees, houses, objects
| that are on the ground. By looking through a tube to hide them the
| effect goes away. Holding your thumb up (or a coin) at arms length
| to obscure the moon will quickly show you the size is the same on the
| horizon or overhead.
|
| I just recalled childhood Kaleidoscope box, Teleidoscope box whateve.
| Look in box through short tube with magnifying lens

I didn't say anything about a lens.
http://eatock.com/files/gimgs/278_tube-ticket.jpg
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero

'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so,
most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith
Go away, you are being silly.

In article
,
Rama wrote:

palsing wrote:

snip

The moon illusion works for more than just the moon, it works for
entire constellations. Orion rising or setting is huge, but it appears
to be much smaller (to my eye) when it is culminating, and the same
can be said for other constellations that get high enough in the
sky... in other words, Grus doesn't change apparent size at all for
me.

Doesn't it mean that sky (space) at horizone is magnified like coin in
water is magnified? Reason may be anything, most probably atmospheric
refraction.

No; atmospheric refraction *reduces* the apparent vertical size of
objects near the horizon. The effect varies with atmospheric conditions,
but its result is always to increase the apparent altitude of any given
point in space.

As for the original question, since the Moon illusion depends on
differences in our 'forward' and 'upward' visual perception & processing
I think it would depend on the observer's acclimation. I would expect
that an astronaut whose brain had adapted to the equivalence of
directions in free-fall would not be susceptible to the illusion, but a
'space tourist' in a vessel with artificial gravity might well continue
to be.

--
Odysseus

"Odysseus" wrote in message
news | In article
| ,
| Rama wrote:
|
| palsing wrote:
|
| snip
|
snip
The Moon is bigger than a tree and smaller than a hand.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Moons.JPG

On Mar 23, 8:15*pm, Rama wrote:
1. It is said that moon illusion is psychological perception, not
physical i.e it got nothing to do with atmospheric refraction.
2. The horizone full moon is at farther distance compared to overhead
moon. This variation in distance is physical.

So as moon illusion is psychological, it should work if earth itself
is removed. Now just observer(you) in space. Imagine one moon at
distance of 390,000 km straight before your eyes(horizone moon) and
second moon at distance of 384,000 km above (overhead moon).

As moon illusion is psychological, 'horizone moon' should look larger
than 'overhead moon'.

On same logic, any distant object in space should look larger than
closer object.

Please point out any mistake.

Thanks!

OK...

Why does the FACT that the moon ILLUSION is psychological mean that
the horizon does not play a part in it?

In simple terms:

Moon on horizon...Beyond things on horizon... Must be faaaar away...
Half a degree across...Must be biiig....

Moon high in sky... Could be just out of reach... Not so far... Half a
degree across...Not so big...

Or check out this:

http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/...erspective.htm

In sci.physics Rama wrote:


palsing wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:50Â*am, Rama wrote:
palsing wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:15Â*pm, Rama wrote:
1. It is said that moon illusion is psychological perception, not
physical i.e it got nothing to do with atmospheric refraction.
2. The horizone full moon is at farther distance compared to overhead
moon. This variation in distance is physical.

So as moon illusion is psychological, it should work if earth itself
is removed. Now just observer(you) in space. Imagine one moon at
distance of 390,000 km straight before your eyes(horizone moon) and
second moon at distance of 384,000 km above (overhead moon).

As moon illusion is psychological, 'horizone moon' should look larger
than 'overhead moon'.

On same logic, any distant object in space should look larger than
closer object.

Please point out any mistake.

Thanks!

The moon illusion works for more than just the moon, it works for
entire constellations. Orion rising or setting is huge, but it appears
to be much smaller (to my eye) when it is culminating, and the same
can be said for other constellations that get high enough in the
sky... in other words, Grus doesn't change apparent size at all for
me.

Doesn't it mean that sky (space) at horizone is magnified like coin in
water is magnified? Reason may be anything, most probably atmospheric
refraction.

No, it doesn't.

My often incorrect pal Androcles was exactly right this time when he
said;

"The moon only seems larger when compared to trees, houses, objects
that are on the ground. By looking through a tube to hide them the
effect goes away. Holding your thumb up (or a coin) at arms length
to obscure the moon will quickly show you the size is the same on the
horizon or overhead."

Like he says, use a coin or your thumb in order to prove to yourself
that the moon is the same apparent size wherever it is in the sky. The
Moon Illusion is very strong, I have met countless people who SWEAR it
is bigger when it is rising... but it is not.

OK.
1. Pilots also report moon illusion even though no background objects
are present.

You mean like the horizon?

If it is a moon lite night, you do see a horizon while airborne.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Paul Anderson aka Paul A aka "palsing" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote:
"palsing" wrote:
Rama wrote:

Rama wrote:
1. It is said that moon illusion is psychological perception, not
physical i.e it got nothing to do with atmospheric refraction.
2. The horizone full moon is at farther distance compared to
overhead
moon. This variation in distance is physical.
So as moon illusion is psychological, it should work if earth itself
is removed. Now just observer(you) in space. Imagine one moon at
distance of 390,000 km straight before your eyes(horizone moon) and
second moon at distance of 384,000 km above (overhead moon).
As moon illusion is psychological, 'horizone moon' should look
larger
than 'overhead moon'.
On same logic, any distant object in space should look larger than
closer object. Please point out any mistake. Thanks!

Paul Anderson wrote:
The moon illusion works for more than just the moon, it works for
entire constellations. Orion rising or setting is huge, but it appears
to be much smaller (to my eye) when it is culminating, and the same
can be said for other constellations that get high enough in the
sky... in other words, Grus doesn't change apparent size at all for
me.

Rama wrote:
Doesn't it mean that sky (space) at horizone is magnified like coin in
water is magnified? Reason may be anything, most probably
atmospheric refraction.

Paul Anderson wrote:
No, it doesn't.
My often incorrect pal Androcles was exactly right this time
when he said;
::A:: "The moon only seems larger when compared to trees,
::A:: houses, objects that are on the ground. By looking through
::A:: a tube to hide them the effect goes away. Holding your
::A:: thumb up (or a coin) at arms length to obscure the moon
::A:: will quickly show you the size is the same on the horizon
::A:: or overhead."
Like he says, use a coin or your thumb in order to prove to yourself
that the moon is the same apparent size wherever it is in the sky. The
Moon Illusion is very strong, I have met countless people who SWEAR it
is bigger when it is rising... but it is not.
\Paul A

Androcles wrote:
My embarrassed and often rude acquaintance palsing has yet to show a
single instance where I have been wrong, for all his mutterings of
incorrectness.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm
You are included on the web page, palsing. I'll publish your retraction
and apology when I get it.

Paul Anderson wrote:
I'm rarely embarrassed and never rude, I think you have that market
cornered... in the past, I have clearly shown that you are wrong... I
know this will **** you off, but In offer it anyhow...
Here we go again.
Androcles, Your very own reference formula, found here...
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif
.... is NOT a derived equation, it is proposed by Einstein as a
definition, and is only presented by him to demonstrate time in a
stationary system, whereas the “time” required by light to travel
from
A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. In other
words, by his definition, the 2 clocks must NOT have any relative
motion between them in this stationary system and the relative
velocity between them must be zero. This formula is invalid if the
relative velocity is other than zero, so your often touted argument
is also invalid, for the same reason.
Read your own references all the way through, because "cherry-
picking" an equation without knowing its limitations or restrictions
can only lead to errors. Other than that, your math is perfect.
Apology accepted. ---- \Paul A

hanson wrote:
.... hahahaha... Andi-Pandi, your are weaseling, big
time, due to the moon-LIGHT effects which the
photons from the moon have on your retina. You
just don't know that yet, because of your ostensibly
and clearly manifest worsening mental turbidity and
your acelerating intellectual subduction.

Why that interesting phenomena affects you personally
so profound and grievously is unknown, except that in
mentally unstable people who are prone to fanaticism,
like you are, this issue is a fantastic object of scientific
study.

Check the web and look for clinical trials for testing
new Pharmaceutical therapies to ameliorate "lunacy".
Sign up, Andi. Side benefit: They pay very well! Do it,
it will ease the burden of your poverty stricken existence.

Till then, thanks for the laughs guys... ahahahanson

The moon is not an illusion. It's really there.

The sucker of all suckers, "Don, the con" aka "Don Stockbauer"
who does have issues with
his vintage 1960 cybernetic global brain, consequenlty wrote
" The moon is not an illusion. It's really there."
[in his ethanolic response to this]: ....

Paul Anderson aka Paul A aka "palsing" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote:
"palsing" wrote:
Rama wrote:

Rama wrote:
1. It is said that moon illusion is psychological perception, not
physical i.e it got nothing to do with atmospheric refraction.
2. The horizone full moon is at farther distance compared to
overhead
moon. This variation in distance is physical.
So as moon illusion is psychological, it should work if earth itself
is removed. Now just observer(you) in space. Imagine one moon at
distance of 390,000 km straight before your eyes(horizone moon) and
second moon at distance of 384,000 km above (overhead moon).
As moon illusion is psychological, 'horizone moon' should look
larger
than 'overhead moon'.
On same logic, any distant object in space should look larger than
closer object. Please point out any mistake. Thanks!

Paul Anderson wrote:
The moon illusion works for more than just the moon, it works for
entire constellations. Orion rising or setting is huge, but it appears
to be much smaller (to my eye) when it is culminating, and the same
can be said for other constellations that get high enough in the
sky... in other words, Grus doesn't change apparent size at all for
me.

Rama wrote:
Doesn't it mean that sky (space) at horizone is magnified like coin in
water is magnified? Reason may be anything, most probably
atmospheric refraction.

Paul Anderson wrote:
No, it doesn't.
My often incorrect pal Androcles was exactly right this time
when he said;
::A:: "The moon only seems larger when compared to trees,
::A:: houses, objects that are on the ground. By looking through
::A:: a tube to hide them the effect goes away. Holding your
::A:: thumb up (or a coin) at arms length to obscure the moon
::A:: will quickly show you the size is the same on the horizon
::A:: or overhead."
Like he says, use a coin or your thumb in order to prove to yourself
that the moon is the same apparent size wherever it is in the sky. The
Moon Illusion is very strong, I have met countless people who SWEAR it
is bigger when it is rising... but it is not.
\Paul A

Androcles wrote:
My embarrassed and often rude acquaintance palsing has yet to show a
single instance where I have been wrong, for all his mutterings of
incorrectness.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm
You are included on the web page, palsing. I'll publish your retraction
and apology when I get it.

Paul Anderson wrote:
I'm rarely embarrassed and never rude, I think you have that market
cornered... in the past, I have clearly shown that you are wrong... I
know this will **** you off, but In offer it anyhow...
Here we go again.
Androcles, Your very own reference formula, found here...
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif
.... is NOT a derived equation, it is proposed by Einstein as a
definition, and is only presented by him to demonstrate time in a
stationary system, whereas the "time" required by light to travel
from
A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. In other
words, by his definition, the 2 clocks must NOT have any relative
motion between them in this stationary system and the relative
velocity between them must be zero. This formula is invalid if the
relative velocity is other than zero, so your often touted argument
is also invalid, for the same reason.
Read your own references all the way through, because "cherry-
picking" an equation without knowing its limitations or restrictions
can only lead to errors. Other than that, your math is perfect.
Apology accepted. ---- \Paul A

hanson wrote:
.... hahahaha... Andi-Pandi, your are weaseling, big
time, due to the moon-LIGHT effects which the
photons from the moon have on your retina. You
just don't know that yet, because of your ostensibly
and clearly manifest worsening mental turbidity and
your acelerating intellectual subduction.

Why that interesting phenomena affects you personally
so profound and grievously is unknown, except that in
mentally unstable people who are prone to fanaticism,
like you are, this issue is a fantastic object of scientific
study.

Check the web and look for clinical trials for testing
new Pharmaceutical therapies to ameliorate "lunacy".
Sign up, Andi. Side benefit: They pay very well! Do it,
it will ease the burden of your poverty stricken existence.

Till then, thanks for the laughs guys... ahahahanson

John Morriss wrote:
On Mar 23, 8:15*pm, Rama wrote:
1. It is said that moon illusion is psychological perception, not
physical i.e it got nothing to do with atmospheric refraction.
2. The horizone full moon is at farther distance compared to overhead
moon. This variation in distance is physical.

So as moon illusion is psychological, it should work if earth itself
is removed. Now just observer(you) in space. Imagine one moon at
distance of 390,000 km straight before your eyes(horizone moon) and
second moon at distance of 384,000 km above (overhead moon).

As moon illusion is psychological, 'horizone moon' should look larger
than 'overhead moon'.

On same logic, any distant object in space should look larger than
closer object.

Please point out any mistake.

Thanks!

OK...

Why does the FACT that the moon ILLUSION is psychological mean that
the horizon does not play a part in it?

In simple terms:

Moon on horizon...Beyond things on horizon... Must be faaaar away...
Half a degree across...Must be biiig....

Moon high in sky... Could be just out of reach... Not so far... Half a
degree across...Not so big...

Or check out this:

http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/...erspective.htm

In your(and rest of users) words, as moon illusion got nothing to do
with atmospheric refraction and gravity of planet, it simply depends
on horizone terrain and presence of things on terrain.

We can create horizone terrain in space by spreading thin BLACK color
paper and some man standing on it to.

According to you people, observer on such thin paper will see large
moon illusion.

If thin paper is not necessary, space walker astronaut paolo should
see LARGE moon behind distant another space walker astronaut cady. In
this case cady is foreground object like trees, people, stones on
earth.