[edby]

"He defined" is not proof of how things operate and occur in the real world. We need evidence.

So in answer to my question, you would want 'proof' that all bachelors in the 'real world' are not married?

Your example of the definition of bachelor is not valid in this matter, and pretty childish.

Why? Euclid defines parallel lines as those which maintain the same distance from one another. This is just like the definition of ‘bachelor’.

Lines that always have the same distance, never meet. Proof: at the meeting point, the distance is zero.

[edit] Or perhaps you are talking about lines that have zero distance from each other, at every point? But then that is a single line, not two.

[edit] On being 'childish', well the bachelor example is the one given to most first year logic students to explain why definitional truths are necessary, and no empirical evidence needed.

How about 2+2=4? With units base 10 of course. Are you asking for empirical evidence that whenever you take two pairs of things, you end up with 4 things?

[edby]

The Ancient Greek depiction of perspective has perspective lines which approach each other for infinity.

And again, challenging you here on precisely which Ancient Greek text states that 'perspective lines approach each other for infinity'. Should be easy enough.

[Tom Bishop]

So in answer to my question, you would want 'proof' that all bachelors in the 'real world' are not married?

The Ancient Greeks are making conclusions for things that they cannot see or test for themselves. It is impossible to come up with axioms or conclusions for something that cannot be tested.

Why? Euclid defines parallel lines as those which maintain the same distance from one another. This is just like the definition of ‘bachelor’

Where did Euclid prove that the perspective lines receded into infinity?

Where did Elucid prove that the perspective lines would never meet?

Where did Elucid prove his ideas about perspective at all?

Your argument of he "defined" this or that or that his conclusions are based on "rigorous argumentation" and that "evidence is not necessary" is bunk. Evidence is necessary.

The Ancient Greek depiction of perspective has perspective lines which approach each other for infinity.

And again, challenging you here on precisely which Ancient Greek text states that 'perspective lines approach each other for infinity'. Should be easy enough.

That is the idea behind these "the sun would never set" comments. If you are claiming that it is impossible for something to set because of your perspective model then you need to prove your perspective model.

No evidence? Then your theory is disregarded as the universal truth that must be disproved.

No evidence? Then any other theory is as equally valid.

Where is the evidence?

[edby]

Why? Euclid defines parallel lines as those which maintain the same distance from one another. This is just like the definition of ‘bachelor’

Where did Euclid prove that the perspective lines receded into infinity?

I think you are getting confused between ‘parallel lines’ and ‘perspective lines’.

And indeed, where did Euclid prove that ‘perspective lines’ receded into infinity? You are the one claiming that he did. I asked you to cite a text, but you ignored me.

Where did Elucid prove his ideas about perspective at all?

Again, I am asking you for a citation.

Your argument of he "defined" this or that or that his conclusions are based on "rigorous argumentation" and that "experimental evidence is not necessary" is bunk.

You seem to be confused about the way definitions, which are provided to give a precise meaning to a term, are used in geometry.

[edby]

That is the idea behind these "the sun would never set" comments. If you are claiming that it is impossible for something to set because of your perspective model then you need to prove your perspective model.

Who is claiming that the sun can never set because of their perspective model?

[Tom Bishop]

Get out of here with your definitions BS. The Ancient Greeks did not study infinite perspective lines, or have any way to know what they did in the distance. The Ancient Greeks could not see or test it for themselves.

Per your "bachelor" example; a more appropriate comparison is to try to determine whether a mysterious man behind the door is married or unmarried. Such a thing is impossible, and applying a label on him without appropriate evidence is fallacious.

That is the idea behind these "the sun would never set" comments. If you are claiming that it is impossible for something to set because of your perspective model then you need to prove your perspective model.

Who is claiming that the sun can never set because of their perspective model?

Everyone is. "The sun can never set on a Flat Earth" is one of the arguments we get all the time.

[edby]

Get out of here with your definitions BS. The Ancient Greeks did not study infinite perspective lines, or have any way to know what they did in the distance. The Ancient Greeks could not see or test it for themselves.

No they didn’t. You were the one who brought the Greeks into this. You are still confusing ‘perspective lines’ and ‘parallel lines’.

The reason I insist on the definitions BS is so we are clear what we are talking about. You are shifting all over the place.

So, having agreed on the definition of ‘parallel line’, what do you mean by ‘perspective line’. This is taking quite a time.

Per your "bachelor" example; a more appropriate comparison is to try to determine whether a mysterious man behind the door is married or unmarried. Such a thing is impossible, and applying a label on him without appropriate evidence is fallacious.

That is more appropriate, yes. But if he is a bachelor, then it follows he is unmarried. And by the same reasoning, if the mysterious lines outside the front door are truly parallel, then they will never meet.

[edby]

Here is a better example. I am standing at a railway crossing, looking down the tracks. There is an upwards incline followed by a downwards one, so I cannot see for more than a mile.

What evidence do I have that these tracks are really parallel, and do not meet at some point later on? I can’t rely on my senses, because of the incline.

Well, there is no direct empirical evidence, as I said. But indirect evidence might include the fact that there is no evidence of any recent fatalities caused by tracks converging. Moreover, the railway company would be conscious of this risk and would employ people to make sure the tracks stayed well and truly apart. Plus, rivets, concrete, sleepers etc.

[edby]

"The sun can never set on a Flat Earth" is one of the arguments we get all the time.

By ‘set’, you mean approach the surface level of the earth, so the sun touches the earth and everything catches fire? That seems perfectly reasonable.

You are arguing, by contrast, by some ill-defined and vague ‘theory of perspective’, that the sun does touch the earth and sets it on fire? There is little evidence for this.

[AATW]

You have no evidence for your own perspective model.

Well, I kinda do. Every observation I've made - i.e. just looking at things - tells me that:
1) Things get smaller as they get further from me and
2) If I can't see part of an object then it is because it is behind another closer object.

That is how reality works from every observation I and everyone else has made. When you see a car go over a hill in the distance you don't think "clearly the perspective lines have merged". You know that the car is the other side of the hill and it is the hill which is stopping you seeing the car. If it's going slowly you will see the car "set" behind the hill, bottom first, as it goes over.

All you need to do to understand all this is to know how we see things. Light travels in a straight line from an object into our eye. If something blocks the light's path from part of the object then we can't see that part of the object. So here the man on the right has gone over the hill, the man on the left can only see his head. The light from the lower part of the man is blocked by the hill:



Things get smaller as they go further from you because the angle the two ends of the object make at your eye is smaller, so the image on your retina is smaller:
So take train tracks:



The blue lines meet at a narrower angle than the orange ones because they are coming from further away. There will be an angle at which the two tracks can no longer be distinguished but that is merely a limitation of your eyesight, optical zoom will restore them so they can be see distinctly again. At what distance is the angle zero so that they can't be distinguished no matter how much you zoom? Infinity, clearly. Because it's a triangle. The base is a finite, constant distance, the angle will be greater than 0 at finite distances.

So why does the sun not set on a flat earth? Because you would have a clear line of sight to it. If you're on a hill and you're looking at the sunset then this is the reality were the earth 3,000 miles above the plane:



Nothing is blocking your view of the sun, it won't set if light travels in straight lines which I thought you agreed it does. Nothing is in between you and the sun to stop you seeing it.
This is backed up by my empirical observations of reality. If you're claiming that this reality of how we see things breaks down at a certain distance then the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that.

[BlueMachine]

I don't believe I ever claimed anything of the sort. How does that relate to my argument in specific terms?

You are claiming that is is impossible for the sun to set. You are making claims for how objects should behave into the distance without any real evidence for those assumptions. You are using the Ancient Greek model of perspective as truth, when that truth first needs to be corroborated with evidence.

Using the hypothesis of perspective lines which approach each other for infinity as a "proof" that something is impossible is pretty unreasonable. There are a number of assumptions there. You should provide some kind of evidence for those assumptions for them to be taken seriously.

We have been asking for evidence for your model for many years, to no avail. We are given quotes by Ancient Greek scholars along the lines of of "therefore... therefore... therefore..." That is not empirical evidence. It is rationalism.

At this point I would go as far as saying that since this theory is given without evidence, that it can be disregarded without evidence.

I am indeed claiming that it would be impossible for the sun to set from a higher elevation if the earth was flat. My evidence is my original post. Here is a simpler explanation: place your head level to a table. Have a friend take a lighter and lower it below the table. My hypothesis is that it will disappear from view; it will set. Now place your head on the ground outside in a level field. Have your friend walk away from you and see if the lighter sets. My hypothesis is that it will not set.

Another point, the ancient Greek scholars you are mentioning often rationalized abstract concepts. These abstract concepts are true either by definition or provable logic. Whether or not those abstract concepts are reflected in the real world would depend if we have considered all the factors in our calculations. To argue that the abstract concepts themselves are errant is provably wrong if you name a specific argument rather than just "all the Greek theories are wrong", in which case counter-argument would be far to comprehensive to engage with. However, I believe that bringing up the Greeks is a distraction technique, and you still haven't told me what possible alternative there could be for this physical observance.

Are you arguing against the abstract, mathematically proven facts of how perspective works? or are you arguing against the real-life application of those concepts?

[BlueMachine]

The original post was merely asking how the sun can move across the sky at a constant speed of 15 degrees per hour. How does perspective weirdness explain that? The slowing of motion across the sky is exactly cancelled out by magic perspective and just coincidentally appears as if the earth were rotating at a constant angular speed?

It seems really weird to demand proof of basic geometry when you are willing to make all kinds of crazy assumptions about perspective without any evidence whatsoever.

What are you talking about? All of our evidence is derived empirically. Consider our example here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 300 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

We gave an example where bodies move more consistently across the sky the higher they are.

Where is your example of the opposite?

As the Ancient Greek theory is one that is thousands of years old, it should be a given that you have mountains of evidence for us for how bodies behave at extreme ranges.

Where is it?

I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain

The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.

[Tom Bishop]

I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain

The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.

That is just math. That math represents a model with certain axioms. Those axioms need to be proven true before you can use them.

If we change the axioms, we change the math. See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always

[Tumeni]

That is just math. That math represents a model with certain axioms. Those axioms need to be proven true before you can use them.

If we change the axioms, we change the math. See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always

Are there any 'axioms' that you accept without reservation already, that wouldn't need to be proven by anyone posting here for you to accept what they post at face value?

[BlueMachine]

I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain

The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.

That is just math. That math represents a model with certain axioms. Those axioms need to be proven true before you can use them.

If we change the axioms, we change the math. See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always

Let me sum up my understanding of our conversation so far. I stated my evidence that the sun moving at constant angular velocity indicates we are living on a round earth. You stated it was due to an effect that an object will move at a more constant angular velocity the further away it is. I stated that this is false, provided both practical examples of proof and a mathematical method of proof. You stated that it's "just math" and I'm using "certain axioms," and you posted a link stating that because 20 degrees centigrade is not twice as hot as 10 degrees centigrade, then a yard does not equal 3 feet (one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard). I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I cannot believe you are genuinely interested in the truth. You are merely trying to win an argument by any means. If you don't say something to convince me that you are interested in knowing whether the earth is round or flat, I cannot continue this. Sorry.

[Tom Bishop]

I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain

The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.

That is just math. That math represents a model with certain axioms. Those axioms need to be proven true before you can use them.

If we change the axioms, we change the math. See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always

Let me sum up my understanding of our conversation so far. I stated my evidence that the sun moving at constant angular velocity indicates we are living on a round earth. You stated it was due to an effect that an object will move at a more constant angular velocity the further away it is. I stated that this is false, provided both practical examples of proof and a mathematical method of proof. You stated that it's "just math" and I'm using "certain axioms," and you posted a link stating that because 20 degrees centigrade is not twice as hot as 10 degrees centigrade, then a yard does not equal 3 feet (one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard). I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I cannot believe you are genuinely interested in the truth. You are merely trying to win an argument by any means. If you don't say something to convince me that you are interested in knowing whether the earth is round or flat, I cannot continue this. Sorry.

You need to prove that the perspective lines recede for infinity. Math that assumes certain axioms does not cut it. The math of the Ancient Greeks also assumes that perfect circles exist. However, as we now have strong evidence in QM that the universe is quantized, it is impossible for a perfect circle to exist. The Ancient Greeks believed in a perfect continuous universe without any evidence at all.

So, prove it.

If you cannot provide evidence for the concept then we are obligated to discard it without evidence. You may not like that, but that's how things work around here. We are empiricists. We have higher standards than you do. An ancient hypothetical model of the universe that amounts to little more than a thought experiment is insufficient as evidence.

Where is your evidence for this infinity nonsense?

[Bobby Shafto]

You need to prove that the perspective lines recede for infinity. Math that assumes certain axioms does not cut it. The math of the Ancient Greeks also assumes that perfect circles exist. However, as we now know that the universe is quantized, it is impossible for a perfect circle to exist. The Ancient Greeks believed in a perfect continuous universe without any evidence at all.

So, prove it.

If you cannot provide evidence for the concept then we are obligated to discard it without evidence. You may not like that, but that's how things work around here. We are empiricists. We have higher standards than you do. An ancient hypothetical model of the universe that amounts to little more than a thought experiment is insufficient as evidence.

Where is your evidence for this infinity nonsense?

That's the way things work around here?

Under the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory all light curves upwards.

There are also rays which miss the earth and make a u-turn back into space. The illustration in my first post only shows those rays which hit the earth. There will also be rays which miss the earth slightly. This is what causes clouds to appear to be lit from below after the sun is below the horizon in some photographs. This is also what causes the tops of mountains and skyscrapers to be illuminated, while the base is in shadow.

Per twilight after the sun sets, that is caused by light reflecting off of the atmosphere.

All of these phenomenons are explainable under this theory, and trivially so.

Prove it. That's the way things work around here, Tom.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes. That is the way things work.

Read the first page of the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread. An assertion was made in the first post. Experimental evidence was provided in the third post. The experimenter saw the same phenomenon multiple times. No contradictory evidence was provided, only a claim without evidence that there was error in the experiment. This followup was made without evidence, and so that followup is discarded without evidence. The ball is in your court.

I had actually discarded the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory on the same grounds of lack of evidence long ago. However, the Wild Heretic society has published evidence that light is bending upwards, and more things suggesting that too on their website. Trawling the comments section of the bendy light page, accounts are given that this a known phenomenon in surveying and that surveyors are taught to adjust for the error.

[Bobby Shafto]

Experimental evidence was provided in the third post.

It's on YouTube so it must be true.
YouTube videos making claims is evidence.
That YouTube video is an example of your "higher standards."

Noted.

[Bobby Shafto]

I had actually discarded the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory on the same grounds of lack of evidence long ago. However, the Wild Heretic society has published evidence that light is bending upwards, and more things suggesting that too on their website. Trawling the comments section of the bendy light page, accounts are given that this a known phenomenon in surveying and that surveyors are taught to adjust for the error.

Prove it.
Document it.
Cite it.
Test it.
You're an empiricist. Don't swallow something just because it tickles your ears.

Oh, and if you've concluded it's been demonstrated, then abandon your "axiom" that the horizon is always at eye-level, because as argued in the other topic thread, it's incompatible with "bendy light."