Is the Moon Really Bigger on the Horizon? A Closer Look at the Optical Illusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter orangepeel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Optical Sun
AI Thread Summary
The Moon and Sun appear larger on the horizon due to an optical illusion created by our brain's reference points, not because of any actual change in size. The perceived size is influenced by atmospheric conditions and the surrounding landscape, which provide context for comparison. Observers often notice this effect more prominently during a full moon, as it is easier to see details against the horizon. The clarity and detail of the Moon can also vary depending on its position in the sky, with atmospheric effects enhancing visibility when it is lower. Overall, the actual size remains constant, while perception fluctuates based on viewing conditions.
orangepeel
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The Sun and Moon appear larger while near the horizon. The explanation I heard for this optical illusion is that when the Sun and Moon are near the horizon our brain(eyes) have something to reference their size to therefor making them appear larger. But which is their actual size? Is the size observed at the horizon the actual size or the size observed in middle of the sky?

Thanks for your time.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
orangepeel said:
The Sun and Moon appear larger while near the horizon. The explanation I heard for this optical illusion is that when the Sun and Moon are near the horizon our brain(eyes) have something to reference their size to therefor making them appear larger. But which is their actual size? Is the size observed at the horizon the actual size or the size observed in middle of the sky?

Thanks for your time.
Think about what you're asking. The actual size of the sun is 800,000 miles in diameter. Its perceived size is dependent on your observing conditions and what you're used to. Neither is more right.

But objectively, if you use a camera ot record the image, you will see that both images (horizon and zenith) are http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/images/moonillusion/seattlemoon_stephens_strip2.jpg" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a link to an excessive treatment of the subject:

http://facstaff.uww.edu/mccreadd/intro9.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yes, absurdly simple. I feel stupid...
 
I'm not completely sold on new theory in LP's link. I've got my own hypothesis on the cause of the Moon illusion.

I only notice the Moon illusion at full moons. It is my experience that others share this perception. Many times I've heard someone say "look how large the Moon is!", or "did you see the Moon last night, it looked so large". These statements have always referred to a full moon on the horizon.

So, what's going on?...

I once got a "3x telescope" from a box of Cracker Jacks. Trying out my new toy, I first assumed I was looking through the wrong end because things appeared smaller, not bigger. But I was holding it right. Keeping my other eye open, I could confirm that objects through the telescope were indeed 3x bigger. But they weren't clearer: ie, if I was trying to read the words on a sign 20 meters away, I had a better chance of doing it naked-eye, rather than with the 3x telescope. Because of its cheap plastic lens, you actually lost detail despite gaining size. And this tricked my mind into thinking that the telescope actually made things look smaller.

When the full moon is high in the sky, at first glance, it is completely over exposed to my eyes. I can't see any detail. After staring at it, my pupils closed down, and some detail comes into view, but the high contrast between the Moon and the surrounding sky still seems to rob the Moon of detail. But on the horizon, the atmosphere will blur the Moon a bit, but it also dims it to the point that surface detail is easier to see, especially when it is against a sky that is not yet completely dark. So at first glance, its much easier to differentiate the dark fields from the bright highlands when the Moon is on the horizon rather than when its high in the sky. And based on my "3x telescope" observation, more detail means things appear larger.

Furthermore, I don't seem to notice the Moon illusion on waxing gibbous moon rises, when the Moon rises while the Sun is still up. At this point I think the atmosphere robs the Moon of contrast, making detail more difficult to see, negating the moon illusion.

I also think that a full moon, high in the sky, when viewed through clouds looks larger than when viewed through a break in the clouds. The clouds act as a filter, cutting the glare and allowing me to see more detail. The same is true for the Sun. Sometimes the clouds are the right thickness so that you can perceive the Sun as a round circle in the sky. That's what stands out to me is how round and large the Sun is. I don't get that impression when glancing at the Sun high in a cloudless sky.

If my hypothesis is correct, here's a simple experiment I'd like to perform (except it's usually cloudy here on full moons): Have a group of people view the full moon on the horizon and sketch what they see. A few hours later have the people sketch the Moon again (preferably this would be a different group of people who aren't biased by detail they memorized from their first drawings). Compare the two groups of drawings. Which has more detail?
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top