### Recent Posts

91
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« Last post by inquisitive on August 18, 2017, 09:37:09 PM »
The plane is lit from the side.

Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.

If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.

In a railroad perspective scene the tracks of a railroad can ascend in height to your eye level. Why can't the sun descend to your eye level?
We are discussing actual measurable facts.  When I see the sun set in the west it appears higher in the sky for someone 500 miles to the west of me.
92
##### Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« Last post by Tom Bishop on August 18, 2017, 09:31:19 PM »
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.

Case closed.

Next

Please back up your ideas for how perspective works at that scale with an example of where we have seen distant objects turn to perspective like that.
93
##### Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« Last post by TomInAustin on August 18, 2017, 09:15:45 PM »
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.

Case closed.

Next
94
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« Last post by Curious Squirrel on August 18, 2017, 09:12:53 PM »
The plane is lit from the side.

Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.

If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.

In a railroad perspective scene the tracks of a railroad can ascend in height to your eye level. Why can't the sun descend to your eye level?
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would. If the sun setting is a trick of perspective, sunlight shouldn't be hitting clouds from the side at much of an angle, unless you're claiming light is bending/curving.
95
##### Flat Earth General / Re: FES Think Tank - Week 1 Poll
« Last post by TomInAustin on August 18, 2017, 09:09:03 PM »
Whatever topic we decide to discuss democratically, I'll chime in.

I voted perspective, but I'll discuss conspiracy if that's what people want to talk about.

I don't know much about distances, and I'm not that interested in them, I don't know why, just bores me or overwhelms my brain for some reason.
There's only so much room in my brain for flat earth topics, so that one sort of fell by the wayside...althou I have a strange, sort of semi-serious theory about how distances might work on a flat earth.

Everyone should pay attention as the distance question is the biggest hole in FE as there is no possible flat map that can be drawn using verifiable and proven distances.

96
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« Last post by Tom Bishop on August 18, 2017, 09:04:11 PM »
The plane is lit from the side.

Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.

If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.

In a railroad perspective scene the tracks of a railroad can ascend in height to your eye level. Why can't the sun descend to your eye level?
97
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« Last post by StinkyOne on August 18, 2017, 08:24:33 PM »
The plane is lit from the side.

Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.

If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.
98
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« Last post by Mock on August 18, 2017, 06:54:21 PM »
I sent him a PM explaining in detail what I meant by "common knowledge". He's ignored it so far, yet he has obviously been online and active since I sent it almost a week ago. I guess that proves my point?

Hello. To get straight to the point:
It's common knowledge.

I see. Then I suppose that we have nothing further to discuss, since truth is based on popular authority.
I think this is a very bizarre and, to be honest, also an unfair reaction. I made the effort to answer your question with a detailed explanation based on common knowledge (the common knowledge in this case being nothing more than "on a compass, the angle between North and South is 180 degrees, and the two ends of the needle simultaneously point north and south, respectively"). You then proceeded to dismiss my explanation, ignore the rest of the post and leave the thread just because my response is founded on common knowledge. Not all of it is automatically wrong, you know ("the sea is filled with saltwater" is common knowledge and a proven fact), and I NEVER asserted that truth is based on popular authority. That's just you being dishonest and looking for a way out.

[It can be observed that on a normal compass with a magnetized needle, whenever one end points towards the North Pole, the other points towards the South Pole and vice versa.

Who observed that?
I answered your question. Since you're not disputing my claim, until you give a proper answer I'll just assume you acknowledged that I'm right and gave up, and that you're not responding in order to save some face.
99
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by SexWarrior on August 18, 2017, 04:53:58 PM »
Most of his supporters think he is reasonable about Islamic terrorism, and this his responses to them are justified. It's probably one of the main reasons they voted for him.
Allow me to correct myself: I don't think anyone in this conversation thinks he's reasonable about Islamic terrorism.

I don't see this as a separate subject just because of the race or ideology of the attacker.
It's completely irrelevant what you do or don't see as separate subjects, unless your point is that you wouldn't make the statements Trump made if you were in his position (lol no shit).

To remain internally consistent (not right, just not self-contradictory), you'd have to propose that it is impossible for a person to view the two as separate subjects. I propose that it is possible, and that Trump is likely to perceive it so.
100
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on August 18, 2017, 04:04:09 PM »
I don't think anybody is questioning the idea that Trump is batshit insane when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism.

Most of his supporters think he is reasonable about Islamic terrorism, and this his responses to them are justified. It's probably one of the main reasons they voted for him.

Many of his supporters think he's God's gift to America.