Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

tl;dr You need a camera and either a long lens or a telescope that'll hook to it to see how parallax lets you view the moon from different angles.

So, the moon always shows one face to Earth. Round Earthers believe it's because, despite the moon being a sphere, it's "tidally locked" to Earth and stuck in that position. Sounds suspicious, eh?

Well, Round Earthers also believe we are also on a big sphere, and that sphere is constantly turning. If that's true, we're also shifting in position in relation to the moon. If the moon was a sphere you'd be looking at it from different angles, wouldn't you?

Well, turns out you can. If you can take good quality photos of the moon at dawn and dusk you'll see the moon from different angles. If you take a number of different photos over night and string them together you'll be able to see the angular change. With a good view (you'll need a 1000mm equivalent lens or better) the 3D motion is apparent enough to demonstrate both that the moon is a sphere and that you're moving in relation to the moon.

tl;dr You need a camera and either a long lens or a telescope that'll hook to it to see how parallax lets you view the moon from different angles. So, the moon always shows one face to Earth. Round Earthers believe it's because, despite the moon being a sphere, it's "tidally locked" to Earth and stuck in that position. Sounds suspicious, eh? Well, Round Earthers also believe we are also on a big sphere, and that sphere is constantly turning. If that's true, we're also shifting in position in relation to the moon. If the moon was a sphere you'd be looking at it from different angles, wouldn't you? Well, turns out you can. If you can take good quality photos of the moon at dawn and dusk you'll see the moon from different angles. If you take a number of different photos over night and string them together you'll be able to see the angular change. With a good view (you'll need a 1000mm equivalent lens or better) the 3D motion is apparent enough to demonstrate both that the moon is a sphere and that you're moving in relation to the moon.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (80).
[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

We're just not on the same page at all. You said "i think what our ancestral mythology says about our world is true.. Norse and Hindu in particular." And those two religions are nothing alike and say entirely different things about the world than each other. I even tried to supply an example, Creation, which is sort of an important part of every religion, in the same way that lame superhero movies heavily depend on their Origin Stories.

One religion posits that gods built the world out of the corpse of an elder god, the other posits that Mind (Shiva) and Creative Energy (Shakti) joined together and creation happened as a result. You believe that these two myths are both true, though mutually incompatible?

I think maybe you live in a world where English words mean vastly different things than the dictionaries in this world, Earth Prime, say they mean. I think it's amazing that you can planeswalk to this world from yours at will. You are amazing!

[–] • 0 pt

I didn't say that at all. Oh lol, That was another faded / throttled user. Maybe we are disagreeing about semantics. I'm was just pointing out those two 'different' cultural myths were both Creation myths. Yes they differ on detail but both use Creation (opposed to natural selection/ evolution theory) for their basis. In that they are the same/ similar. Have a nice day.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

But the Hindu creation myth is closer to the scientific hypothesis about the beginnings of our world than it is to most other religious creation myths. It was like two raw forces of the supernatural merged, and as a result everything in the Universe spontaneously emerged from this pairing. That's not all that far off from the Big Bang.

[–] • 0 pt

Huh ?/. Did you just completely ignore the Hindu creation myth revolves around the Supreme being (lord brahma the creator of all the universes) or are you conflating the actions of lord vishnu the preserver and lord shiva the destroyer as 'scientific hypothesis'.

Would that be for same for other different Culture's creation myths that use their own Gods, and those gods actions are actually explanations for 'scientific hypothesis' and are not creation myths at all ?/ Seems slightly disingenuous.

It's suggesting Hindu creation myths are really 'scientific hypothesis' for the big bang / natural selection and evolution, when that is not at all what the hindu creation myth advocates for at all.

Maybe it's semantics, but the (hindu or other) creation myths are not big bang theory.