Why does the Moon appear so large?

[somispin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4619063.stm<br /><br />Honestly, check it out. Try to explain the unexplained

 

[Leovinus]

<i>Not since June 1987 has the moon been this low in the sky, accentuating the illusion even further.</i><br /><br />It's on the horizon twice a day: moonrise and moonset. What is this 1987 nonsense? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[beartooth]

What is this 1987 nonsense? <br /><br />Maybe someone is playing od Dean Martin 8-tracks. You know, the song: "...When The Moon Hits Your Eyes Like a Big pizza Pie That's Amore.'"

 

[MBA_UIU]

This effect was all over the news here too and it is not that hard to explain. As you know the earth spins on its axis just like a top, and just like a top it also wobbles and tilts. When combined these two effects (the wobble and tilt) can actually make us a little closer, around 1200 miles closer, too the surface of the moon. As the wobble and tilt change so too will our perception of the size of the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[avaunt]

Hmmm. 12000 into 238857 expressed as a percentage, is a little more than 3%.<br /><br />Are you saying we notice, with our eyes, a size difference, simply because we are 3 % closer to it?.<br />

 

[MBA_UIU]

Actually, if your figure of 238857 miles to the moon is correct, then 1200 miles is more like 5.13%. Maybe you need to take a few more math courses huh? But the real reason why the wobble and tilt is a factor is that it changes our perception in the atmospheric refraction of the light that we see. The variation in distances only increases this effect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[avaunt]

But the real reason why the wobble and tilt is a factor is that it changes our perception in the atmospheric refraction of the light that we see.<br /><br />I smell gobbldigook!<br /><br />Wrong.

 

[MBA_UIU]

So, I see that you disagree with all the experts from ISU, UofI, and many other astrological departments that have studied this so lets hear your "expert" opinion on why this happened? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[avaunt]

Did you even READ the article you posted a link to?.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <br /><br />That is why, every single reply to your post, has been a facetious one.

 

[pocket_rocket]

You might have him there, however, 1200 is .513 percent of 238857 not 5.13 percent. Math courses?

 

[MBA_UIU]

Maybe, besides the math courses, you could take a few in elementary reading also. Nowhere, in any of my post, did I provide a link to any website when responding to this topic. Now, here for you consideration, are two websites that I will offer for review. Though not directly related, when combined they back my pervious statements. <br /><br />Now that I have backed my research I am waiting for your response as to why this phenomenon, of an apparently larger than normal moon, occurred on said days. <br />http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html<br /><br />http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~hanes/p014/Notes/Topic_009.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[avaunt]

Which of us can not read?.<br /><br />MY calculation was 12 000, while yours is 1200. So I am stupid for having mis-read your figure, and not checked it, and you are STUPID for not having picked it up, and ridiculed me in turn!, smack yourself in the forehead. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />The first of your links is not science, as it talks about justifying religious dogma, so i have not read it. MY life is too important time-wise, to waste on ANYTHING religo, even scholarly rebuking of religion. WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT, of rebuking nonsense?.<br /><br />The second link, YOU MUST NOT HAVE READ, because it says " The moon is no bigger on the horizon than it is when high in the sky. The effect we see is entirely illusory!" and " By the way, the second proposed explanation, above,(Perhaps the moon is not always at the same distance from the Earth, and on occasion its closer proximity causes it to look exceptionally large.) does have a grain of truth to it. . . The consequent variations in its apparent size can be measured, with care, but are much too small to account for the very striking psychological effects we notice."<br /><br />SO, in effect, you have proved ME correct, and yourself fallacious.<br /><br />Thanks for that.

 

[MBA_UIU]

MY calculation was 12 000, while yours is 1200. So I am stupid for having mis-read your figure, and not checked it, and you are STUPID for not having picked it up, and ridiculed me in turn!<br /><br />Response: First of all 12,000 comes out to .05023 and not the .003 (which is 716.571) claim of your original post. Second I did pick it up and made a comment to that effect. I guess you still have not figured out how to do basic percentages. <br /><br />The first of your links is not science, as it talks about justifying religious dogma, so i have not read it. MY life is too important time-wise, to waste on ANYTHING religo, even scholarly rebuking of religion. WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT, of rebuking nonsense?.<br /><br />Response: As you never read the information of this site how can you call it “religious dogma”? This site does not talk about “religo” (though I think you meant religion). What it does talk about is aspect ratios with references from: <br /> The Astronomical Almanac for 1997. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.<br />Barrow, J. D. and F. I. Tipler. 1986. The anthropic principle. Oxford University Press. New York.<br />Englin, D. and G. F. Howe. 1985. An annular solar eclipse. Creation Research Society Quarterly 22: 7.<br />Mendillo, M. and R. Hart. 1974. Resonances. Physics Today 27(2): 73.<br />Whitcornb, J. C. and D. B. DeYoung. 1974. The Moon, its creation, form, and significance. BMH Books. Winona Lake, IN. pp. 132-136. <br />The second link, YOU MUST NOT HAVE READ, because it says " The moon is no bigger on the horizon than it is when high in the sky. The effect we see is entirely illusory!"<br />I wrote “…so too will our perception (in this case to mean the interpretation of sensory input) of the size of the moon.” No where did I actually say that the moon was larger. As I said all these things work to change our perception of the size of the moon… which is exactly what the web says. <br />No one is claiming that the moon was larger, what they are s <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[beartooth]

I like my explanation better:<br /><br /> You know, the song: "...When The Moon Hits Your Eyes Like a Big pizza Pie That's Amore.'"