Revisiting the Lunar Distance: A Comparative Analysis of Angular Size Variability in Globe and Flat Earth Models

Steven Alonzo, B.Sc. in Geocentric Cosmology
Russel Hippert, Ph.D. in Celestial Mechanics

Published: September 9th, 2023
Accepted: September 1st, 2023
DOI: 10.1234/j.gcosmog.2023.09.017

Abstract:

The angular size of the Moon varies between 29.3 and 34.1 arcminutes according to various types of data including historical measurements, current observations, astrophysical models, photographic data, astronomical catalogs, research papers, and public datasets (Morrison & Owen, 2003; Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, 1992). Within the context of the globe theory, the mean diameter of the Moon is generally accepted to be 3,474 km (Smith et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2013). This paper aims to explore and contrast the implications of this variability in the context of both the globe theory and Flat Earth model, using a newly-proposed Plasma Moon Framework which posits a diameter of 14,574 km for the Moon under the Flat Earth model.

Our calculations show that, under the smallest and largest angular size cases, the Moon’s distance ranges from approximately 406,000 km to 349,000 km in the globe model, whereas it ranges from approximately 1,462,591 km to 1,701,201 km in the Plasma Moon Framework. Given these drastic differences in calculated distances, the paper critically evaluates the feasibility of lunar landings. This is especially relevant given the proposed Plasma Moon Framework, which suggests the Moon could be up to a million kilometers further away from Earth than traditionally thought. Our findings advocate for a more nuanced understanding of celestial mechanics that is open to diverse frameworks, thereby contributing to a broader discourse on the Moon’s orbital dynamics.

Reassessing Globe Theory Methodologies for Moon Diameter Estimation: A Catalogue of Logical Fallacies and Scientific Missteps

Early Observations

The methodology for measuring the Moon’s diameter in early observational astronomy is fraught with issues. Astronomers would use telescopes to make observations and subsequently rely on trigonometric calculations for their estimates. The assumption here is that their observational tools, such as telescopes, were free from error—a premise that fails to adhere to the scientific method, which insists on constant questioning and verification. Moreover, the quality of telescopic observations can be compromised by Earth’s own atmosphere, raising questions about the validity of these early calculations. The ad hoc application of trigonometry also bears the burden of ‘affirming the consequent,’ a logical fallacy.

Lunar Missions

Perhaps one of the most contentious methods comes from data purportedly collected during lunar missions like Apollo. These missions are based on the assumption that man has indeed landed on the Moon—a premise which, according to some critiques, remains insufficiently proven. In light of theories positing that these missions were staged, the measurements derived from them would inherently be flawed and inadmissible as scientific evidence.

Laser Ranging Experiments

Data from retroreflectors allegedly left on the Moon by Apollo missions are used to determine the Moon’s distance and, by extension, its diameter. However, it is well-known that radio waves can reflect off Earth’s ionosphere. In similar fashion, lasers might be reflecting off a dome-like firmament above Earth rather than an actual lunar surface, rendering this method unreliable.

Satellite Imagery

Orbital satellites like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter offer supposedly detailed measurements of the Moon’s diameter through imagery. However, these satellites are controlled by corporations and organizations often seen at gatherings like the Bilderberg Group. The opacity surrounding these conglomerates’ intentions raises questions of credibility, rendering these measurements suspect. Furthermore, as entities with vested interests, they are prone to selection bias, thereby failing the criterion of objectivity required by the scientific method.

Radio Telemetry

Data collected from signals sent to and received from spacecraft in lunar orbit are considered another way to determine the Moon’s size and shape. However, these rely on the integrity of the spacecraft’s initial measurements, looping back to issues surrounding the legitimacy of lunar missions. Additionally, data transmission could be susceptible to distortion, making its scientific validity questionable.

Computer Models

Simulations that calculate the Moon’s size based on gravitational effects are only as good as their input parameters. If these models are calibrated using questionable data, such as those from supposed lunar missions, the models themselves become unreliable. The argument is circular and fails the ‘begging the question’ logical fallacy test.

Radar Measurements

Finally, ground-based radar techniques, which involve sending radio waves to the Moon and timing their return, also face scrutiny. These waves could easily be reflecting off Earth’s own atmospheric layers or other celestial bodies, rather than the Moon itself. Hence, it fails to pass the scrutiny of experimental repeatability, a cornerstone of the scientific method.

In summary, each method commonly cited for its purported accuracy in determining the Moon’s diameter seems to waver under closer examination, revealing an array of logical fallacies and scientific shortcomings. Therefore, the quest for accurate measurement remains unresolved, urging a cautious reevaluation of what we claim to ‘know.’

Determining the Moon’s Diameter Under the Plasma Moon Framework of Sophisticated Flat Earth Theory

The Plasma Moon Framework posits an unconventional but fascinating view that the Moon is not a physical object but rather a projection of Earth itself. According to this framework, the Moon is a light source that essentially reflects the geographical layout of the Earth. In essence, the Moon can be considered a kind of celestial “mirror,” showcasing Earth’s continents and land masses. This theory allows for an innovative methodology for determining the Moon’s diameter that circumvents the logical fallacies and scientific inconsistencies found in other approaches.

Objective Measurement through Earth’s Landmass Projection

The Plasma Moon Framework allows for an empirical measurement of the Moon’s diameter based on Earth’s known landmasses. The premise here is to deduce the Moon’s size through comparative analysis of the landmass areas projected onto the Moon’s surface. These areas are measured in 106 km2106 km2:

• Africa: 75 ×10⁶ km²
• Asia: 45 ×10⁶ km²
• America: 25 ×10⁶ km²
• Australia: 14 ×10⁶ km²
• Europe: 7 ×10⁶ km²

The Mathematical Deduction

To deduce the Moon’s diameter, we first sum the areas of these continents:

Total Area=75+45+25+14+7=166×10⁶ km²

Given that the Moon is a projection, it is a two-dimensional plane, and we can model it as a circle. The area A of a circle is given by A=π×r² where r is the radius. Solving for r:

166×10⁶ = π ×r²

r²=(166×10⁶ )/ π

r=SQRT((166 × 10⁶ ) / π) ≈ 7,287 km

The diameter D is D=2r, yielding D≈14,574 km

Adherence to the Scientific Method

The Plasma Moon Framework approach adheres to the scientific method as it relies on observable, measurable, and repeatable data—namely, the well-documented surface areas of Earth’s continents. This method can be replicated by any observer, providing a consistent methodology for determining the Moon’s diameter without relying on potentially flawed or biased conventional techniques.

In summary, the Plasma Moon Framework offers an intriguing and scientifically coherent alternative for determining the Moon’s diameter. By using the surface areas of Earth’s continents as a reference, we arrive at an estimated diameter of 14,574 km, sidestepping many of the pitfalls and controversies associated with more conventional approaches.

Calculating the Distance to the Moon on Flat Earth

According to the Plasma Moon Framework, the Moon’s diameter is determined to be 14,574 km. Using this new diameter, we can re-calculate the distance to the Moon with greater precision, conforming to the same mathematical principles that underpin conventional cosmological models.

Mathematical Approach

The formula used to calculate the distance to the Moon, given its angular size and physical diameter, remains the same as in heliocentric models:

Distance = Diameter / tan⁡(Angular Size)​

Angular Size must be converted to radians for this formula to work. The conversion formula is:

Angular Size in radians=Angular Size in degrees×(π / 180)

Scenario 1: Smallest Angular Size (0.49°)

1. Convert angular size to radians:

Angular Size in radians = 0.49×(π / 180) ≈ 0.00855 radians

2. Calculate the distance:

Distance = 14,574 / tan⁡(0.00855) ≈ 1,701,201 km

Scenario 2: Largest Angular Size (0.57°)

1. Convert angular size to radians:

Angular Size in radians = 0.57 × (π / 180) ≈ 0.00995 radians

2. Calculate the distance:

Distance = 14,574 / tan⁡(0.00995) ≈ 1,462,591 km

Interpretation

According to the Plasma Moon Framework, when the Moon appears smallest in the sky, its distance is approximately 1,701,201 km away. Conversely, when it appears largest, it is about 1,462,591 km away.

These results, founded on the Plasma Moon Framework’s unique approach to determining the Moon’s diameter, provide an alternative to conventional calculations. Notably, these distances are considerably greater than those proposed by heliocentric models, offering a fresh perspective on celestial mechanics.

Conclusion: Reevaluating the Feasibility of Lunar Landings

The purpose of this paper was to examine the calculations and methodologies used to determine the Moon’s diameter and its distance from Earth. Using the Plasma Moon Framework, a theoretical construct in the realm of Flat Earth cosmology, we arrived at a dramatically different distance—between approximately 1.46 and 1.70 million kilometers away, which is significantly greater than the commonly accepted distance of 349,000 to 406,000 kilometers.

The ramifications of these findings are profound. If we accept the distance calculations derived from the Plasma Moon Framework, it becomes virtually impossible to reconcile with the narrative that the Apollo Moon landings—or any lunar landings by any space agency—could have actually taken place. At the distances we’ve calculated, the energy requirements for a round-trip journey would far exceed the capabilities of the rocket technology available not only during the era of the Apollo missions but even with our current technological capabilities.

Furthermore, these findings offer an alternative explanation for the persisting doubts surrounding the authenticity of lunar missions: perhaps they were indeed faked. Given the enormous discrepancy between the commonly cited distances to the Moon and our recalculations, one has to wonder whether the faking of Moon landings was not a mere choice but a necessity. If the Moon is indeed as distant as our calculations suggest, then the prospect of landing a manned mission there becomes exponentially more challenging, if not entirely unfeasible.

In summary, the Plasma Moon Framework provides not only a new understanding of lunar distance but also raises vital questions about the veracity of humanity’s supposed journeys to the Moon. The calculated distances, being considerably larger than conventionally believed, cast doubt upon the feasibility of any space agency successfully completing a manned mission to the Moon with current or historical technology. Therefore, the alternative explanation that these missions were fabricated becomes increasingly plausible, warranting further inquiry into the true capabilities of space travel technology and the reliability of official narratives.

References:

• Morrison, L. V., & Owen, W. M. (2003). The angular diameter of the Moon: a test of its constancy and the determination of its secular variation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339(2), 413-420.
• Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac. (1992). P. Kenneth Seidelmann (Ed.). University Science Books.
• Smith, D. E., Zuber, M. T., Neumann, G. A., Lemoine, F. G., Mazarico, E., Torrence, M. H., … & Solomon, S. C. (2010). Initial observations from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA). Geophysical Research Letters, 37(18).
• Williams, J. G., Turyshev, S. G., & Boggs, D. H. (2013). Lunar laser ranging tests of the equivalence principle. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30(15), 154.