Thanks, Interesting. Perhaps your example of the Moon on the horizon at see, maybe another example of what the brain has conceived as "convention"It is short so here is slightly condensed version:
Humans naturally and automatically imagine there is a dome of the sky, as their ancestors did, despite their education which tells them that stars, etc. are not points on that dome.
They see high flying birds, clouds etc. rapidly moving with angular rate of change when their flight is over head, but much slower angular rate of change when nearer the horizon, so they naturally, automatically, conclude that the dome over head is closer to them than near where the dome comes down to the horizon. I.e. they automatically have a model of the dome of the sky, despite their education, that is like a "squashed down" sphere.
The moon and the stars are falsely assumed automatically to slide on this "dome of the sky" as was actually believed by ancient man. Thus the overhead moon is automatically thought to be closer to the viewer than when the moon is nearer to the horizon. Education can not undo automatic perceptual processes.
There is an automatic process, called "size constancy" that adjusts the perceived size of the physical size of retina images - to correct for their distance. E.g. when a man stands three times farther from you than his half grown son does, his retinal image is smaller than that of his son, but you correctly perceive that he is bigger despite his smaller retinal image size. Law of "size constancy" in operation. These automatic adjustments are not subject to conscious control - you can not, even if you try, perceive the man is smaller than his half grown son, as his retinal image is.
The retinal image of the moon is a constant size independent of where it is (over head vs. near horizon) but unconsciously all believe automatically (despite their modern education) just as their ancient ancestors did - that the moon is sliding on the surface of the dome of the heavens. As the near horizon moon on that "squashed down" surface is farther away, the law of size constancy automatically increases the perceived size of the near horizon moon, just as it automatically increased the perceived size of the man to be taller than his son, despite his smaller retinal image. That is why the moon near the horizon is perceived to be bigger than the over head moon.
PS your explanation would work, but not when you are on a ship at sea - no objects near the moon just above the horizon to compare with. (But you take your automatic "squashed down" sphere model of the dome of the sky, to sea with you.)
Or perhaps again, the size argument is in relation to the stars?
Last edited: