Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2016, 07:57:49 PM »
Quote
This is pure nonsense. The illustration I posted is to scale. The angles and distances are right there in front of you. I'll post it again below. Notice that the distance needed to see a change in altitude from 20° to 10° (9,040 miles) is greater than the distance needed for polaris to drop from 90° to 20° (8,557 miles). If the diagram were to continue, the distance needed for Polaris to drop from 10° to 5° is more than the distance needed for it to drop from 90° to 10°, about 17,835 miles (a total of 35,433 miles from 90° to 5°). To see Polaris at 0°, the distance needed is infinity.

It would therefore be impossible to see the apparent altitude of any celestial object drop at a constant rate due to perspective if it was moving away at a constant speed. You can draw it out and measure the angles for yourself if you like, or just use an online right triangle calculator.
Triangles don't lie.


Under traditional perspective it is also impossible for the sun to ever set. However, Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations, not some mathematical concept.
I'm sorry, but this is just lame. We're talking about angles here, not "string theory ". Angles, like distances, are simply a way to quantify and/or describe the relationship physical objects have with one another in 3D space.
You say, "Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations". It's terrific that you have such faith in the authority of your teacher, but he apparently has never really done much observing. You would do better to ask an architect, a navigator, a surveyor, or a cartographer, people who successfully use geometry everyday in real world observations. Applied mathematics like trigonometry were derived from pure observation and have been tried and tested for literally thousands of years. Trigonometry is not a theory. It works because it's true. Trigonometric relationships in the physical world are as certain as 2+2=4. They are as certain as any physical law. So if the celestial objects in your FE model do not obey physical laws then they must not be physical and so you need to stop pretending that Flat Earth Theory is not a religion, because that's exactly what you are saying.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 12:42:40 AM by brainsandgravy »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2016, 08:49:02 PM »
Exactly.  Zetetics claim to hold observation over theory, but then this nonsense about plancks, and PI = 4?  Take a look around your home (AKA "conduct an observation").  Find an object that the rest of us would call 'round' and look at it.  Does it appear to be round?  If so, then the same philosophy that makes you say "The world LOOKS flat, I guess it must BE flat" should also lead you to the conclusion "This object LOOKS like a circle, I guess it must BE a circle".  Wrap a string around the can, measure its length.  "The strings MEASURES as if it were about 3.14 times the diameter, I guess it must BE 3.14 times the diameter."  Repeat for other round objects.  "Every round I object I MEASURE has a perimeter of 3.14 times its diameter, I guess ALL round objects exhibit that relationship"
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2016, 04:10:21 AM »
... so the 'real' circumference in nature will be longer than the perfect circle, and sometimes much longer than a perfect circle, because of all the imperfections made by nature, right? But then 'pi' would never be a constant (e.g. = 4) - it would just be bigger than 3,1415.

The most perfect circle possible in a quantized universe would have a pi of 4. Most other circles may have slightly different values for pi, as they are less perfect, but that is mostly irrelevant to the discussion since the continuous universe of the Ancient Greeks also ignores imperfect circles. Any opposing model to the standard ancient one would assume the most perfect circle possible as well when coming up with a value for pi.

Quote from: brainsandgravy
I'm sorry, but this is just lame. We're talking about angles here, not "string theory ". Angles, like distances, are simply a way to quantify and/or describe the relationship physical objects have with one another in 3D space.
You say, "Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations". It's terrific that you have such faith in the authority of your teacher, but he apparently has never really done much observing. You would do better to ask an architect, a navigator, a surveyor, or a cartographer, people who successfully use geometry everyday in real world observations. Applied mathematics like trigonometry were derived from pure observation and have been tried and tested for literally thousands of years. Trigonometry is not a theory. It works because it's true. Trigonometric relationships in the physical world are as certain as 2+2=4. They are as certain as any physical law. So if your flat earth sun does not obey physical laws then it cannot be physical and so you need to stop pretending that Flat Earth Theory is not a religion, because that's exactly what you are saying.

Why are you trying to use unverified ancient geometry/trigonometry as a proof of anything?

The Ancient Greeks did not verify that circles actually exist, and they did not verify that perspective lines actually stretch into infinity as they theorized.

Exactly.  Zetetics claim to hold observation over theory, but then this nonsense about plancks, and PI = 4?  Take a look around your home (AKA "conduct an observation").  Find an object that the rest of us would call 'round' and look at it.  Does it appear to be round?  If so, then the same philosophy that makes you say "The world LOOKS flat, I guess it must BE flat" should also lead you to the conclusion "This object LOOKS like a circle, I guess it must BE a circle".  Wrap a string around the can, measure its length.  "The strings MEASURES as if it were about 3.14 times the diameter, I guess it must BE 3.14 times the diameter."  Repeat for other round objects.  "Every round I object I MEASURE has a perimeter of 3.14 times its diameter, I guess ALL round objects exhibit that relationship"

When I pick up a can it looks like an object. It looks like a shape of some sort. I can safely say that it is an object. Assigning words like "circle" or "cylinder" to that shape brings me into the continuous universe of the Ancient Greeks, which we are increasingly coming to find were full of baloney, and whose science can be disproven by a simple act of walking through a door.

Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2016, 04:31:17 AM »
... so the 'real' circumference in nature will be longer than the perfect circle, and sometimes much longer than a perfect circle, because of all the imperfections made by nature, right? But then 'pi' would never be a constant (e.g. = 4) - it would just be bigger than 3,1415.

The most perfect circle possible in a quantized universe would have a pi of 4. Most other circles may have slightly different values for pi, as they are less perfect, but that is mostly irrelevant to the discussion since the continuous universe of the Ancient Greeks also ignores imperfect circles. Any opposing model to the standard ancient one would assume the most perfect circle as well.

Quote
I'm sorry, but this is just lame. We're talking about angles here, not "string theory ". Angles, like distances, are simply a way to quantify and/or describe the relationship physical objects have with one another in 3D space.
You say, "Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations". It's terrific that you have such faith in the authority of your teacher, but he apparently has never really done much observing. You would do better to ask an architect, a navigator, a surveyor, or a cartographer, people who successfully use geometry everyday in real world observations. Applied mathematics like trigonometry were derived from pure observation and have been tried and tested for literally thousands of years. Trigonometry is not a theory. It works because it's true. Trigonometric relationships in the physical world are as certain as 2+2=4. They are as certain as any physical law. So if your flat earth sun does not obey physical laws then it cannot be physical and so you need to stop pretending that Flat Earth Theory is not a religion, because that's exactly what you are saying.

Why are you trying to use unverified ancient geometry/trigonometry as a proof of anything?

The Ancient Greeks did not verify that circles actually exist, and they did not verify that perspective actually stretches into infinity as theorized.
It's at this point that I would normally assume that I'm being trolled. What a joke.
So not only is the earth flat, geometry and trigonometry, as have been used successfully for thousands of years for countless real world applications, are also wrong? Yes, you would have to believe that in order to defend your impossible flat earth, so it actually makes sense that you would claim such a thing. Is arithmetic also wrong? The ridiculous thing, though, is that you can test the accuracy of geometry yourself, any time, any where, on paper, or in three dimensions.

The well-known relationship between apparent height and distance, for example, is used all the time for measuring large or distant objects like trees and mountains.  You can try it with your house, your spouse, your basketball hoop, sasquatch, anything you can physically measure. For anyone interested, here's how to do it: http://www.instructables.com/id/Using-a-clinometer-to-measure-height/



Here's how to make a climometer: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Clinometer
Here's a right triangle calculator: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
Here's an online size calculator: http://sizecalc.com
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 06:07:19 AM by brainsandgravy »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2016, 05:10:38 AM »
The Ancient Greek theory that perspective lines stretch infinitely into the distance and that the Vanishing Point is infinitely away from the observer isn't proven by measuring the height of a tree.

Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2016, 05:24:55 AM »
The Ancient Greek theory that perspective lines stretch infinitely into the distance and that the Vanishing Point is infinitely away from the observer isn't proven by measuring the height of a tree.
Here's what is proven by greek geometry and how it relates to trees and your comment:
We know the relationships between angles and sides of a triangle:


The longer the base of the triangle, the smaller the angle "A" will get:


Angle "A" is the angle of elevation of the top of the tree as perceived by the viewer. The farther away, the smaller the tree will look and the closer to the horizon the top of the tree will appear. Imagine a star at the top of the tree. In order for that star to meet the horizon, angle "A" will have to equal 0 degrees. Do you know how long the base of the triangle will have to be for angle "A" to shrink to zero?
Answer: infinity.
It's simple mathematics.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 06:22:26 AM by brainsandgravy »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2016, 05:42:42 AM »
Do you know how long the base of the triangle will have to be for angle "A" to shrink to zero?
Answer: infinity.
It's simple mathematics.

There you go, using that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities. You are assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world. Zeno put the theory of a continuous universe to bed.

Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2016, 05:44:57 AM »
Do you know how long the base of the triangle will have to be for angle "A" to shrink to zero?
Answer: infinity.
It's simple mathematics.

There you go, using that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities. You are assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world. Zeno put the theory of a continuous universe to bed.
No. I'm using basic trigonometry to show you how perspective works. Like I said, anybody can test it for themselves at anytime in the real world using the information I posted above. You will always lose this debate against observable reality. Trigonometry is simply a way to quantify what we observe. It always works.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 05:48:30 AM by brainsandgravy »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2016, 06:02:38 AM »

1) I really don't know where you get this idea from observations of the real world: "the most perfect circle possible in a quantized universe would have a pi of 4".  Beyond the fact that your observations of the world do not contain "the most perfect circle possible in a quantized universe", if it did contain such a circle, you would only be able to observe and experiment upon it with real world tools.  Remember, on the wiki it is claimed that a Zetetic "bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved."  So, let's do that.  Let's abandon our "initial theory" from grade school that Pi has ANY fixed value, whether that be 4, or 3.14, or something else.  Maybe every circle has a different ratio of perimeter to diameter, who knows?  Let's find out!  OBSERVE a round object (and please, let's not pretend we don't know perfectly well what that word "round" means in the common usage) and perform an EXPERIMENT upon it, measuring its circumference and diameter.  Repeat with another round object.  Go again, and again, and again.  Do not speak of plancks, you cannot observe them and therefor they are the very definition of an "initial theory."  And if there are no plancks, as far as you can tell, then the perimeter of each round object is exactly what you measure it to be.  I have done this experiment as covered in a previous post, and I urge anyone still reading along with us to conduct the experiment yourself.  No doubt you can find at least three different round objects in easy reach, go measure them.

2) You seem to hold Zeno as some sort of pinnacle of Greek science.  Your statement "the Ancient Greeks...whose science can be disproven by a simple act of walking through a door" is clearly a reference to the earlier discussion of Zeno's Paradox.  While it is true that the impact of his work is important and debated to this day, there is plenty more to Greek science than Zeno (who was more a philosopher than a scientist or mathematician anyway).  The Greeks were the first to observe electricity and magnetism, for example.  They made great strides in medicine for their time.  Pythagorus, in addition to his famous work with triangles, developed early music theory with his study of vibration versus string length.  For crying out loud, they nearly invented calculus!

3) You characterize the proofs offered for the commonly accepted value for Pi as "unverified ancient geometry/trigonometry", a phrase that elicited an actual LOL from me when I read it.  Unverified?  The Greeks built temples, some of which stand today, based on that geometry!  So has every civilization since, including our own.  As brainsandgravy above has posted, you can very easily verify it for yourself, any school worthy of the title will asign its geometry and trigonometry students homework or classroom activities doing exacly that, and I again urge any undecided readers to go out and perform those tests for their own edification.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2016, 12:19:24 PM »
Do you know how long the base of the triangle will have to be for angle "A" to shrink to zero?
Answer: infinity.
It's simple mathematics.

There you go, using that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities. You are assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world. Zeno put the theory of a continuous universe to bed.
No. I'm using basic trigonometry to show you how perspective works. Like I said, anybody can test it for themselves at anytime in the real world using the information I posted above. You will always lose this debate against observable reality. Trigonometry is simply a way to quantify what we observe. It always works.

The math you are using is continuous and, therefore, wrong. We don't live in a continuous universe.

If you can disprove Zeno's Paradoxes which act as a disproof of that sort of math, you may use it as a rebuttal.

1) I really don't know where you get this idea from observations of the real world: "the most perfect circle possible in a quantized universe would have a pi of 4".  Beyond the fact that your observations of the world do not contain "the most perfect circle possible in a quantized universe", if it did contain such a circle, you would only be able to observe and experiment upon it with real world tools.  Remember, on the wiki it is claimed that a Zetetic "bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved."  So, let's do that.

The matter of whether the most perfect circle actually exists or not is rather immaterial to the discussion. Observation of perfect circles do not occur in the Ancient Greek continuous universe, either. But the value for pi in their universe assumes a perfect circle nonetheless. Using that as a baseline, any opposing model must also assume the most perfect circle for that value of pi for any relevant comparison.

It's not really a direct assertion that a most perfect circle exists, but rather the only way to compare a model to the Ancient Greek one which stupidly assumes that perfect circles exist.

Let's abandon our "initial theory" from grade school that Pi has ANY fixed value, whether that be 4, or 3.14, or something else.  Maybe every circle has a different ratio of perimeter to diameter, who knows?  Let's find out!  OBSERVE a round object (and please, let's not pretend we don't know perfectly well what that word "round" means in the common usage) and perform an EXPERIMENT upon it, measuring its circumference and diameter.  Repeat with another round object.  Go again, and again, and again.  Do not speak of plancks, you cannot observe them and therefor they are the very definition of an "initial theory."  And if there are no plancks, as far as you can tell, then the perimeter of each round object is exactly what you measure it to be.  I have done this experiment as covered in a previous post, and I urge anyone still reading along with us to conduct the experiment yourself.  No doubt you can find at least three different round objects in easy reach, go measure them.

If I take an object like an orange, how am I supposed to measure the imperfections and dimples on the surface to get an accurate circumference? If I tied a string around it would only be a guess, since obviously, the string isn't going into the dimples.

The Greeks were the first to observe electricity and magnetism, for example.  They made great strides in medicine for their time.  Pythagorus, in addition to his famous work with triangles, developed early music theory with his study of vibration versus string length.  For crying out loud, they nearly invented calculus!

The Ancient Greeks also believed that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat.

3) You characterize the proofs offered for the commonly accepted value for Pi as "unverified ancient geometry/trigonometry", a phrase that elicited an actual LOL from me when I read it.  Unverified?  The Greeks built temples, some of which stand today, based on that geometry!  So has every civilization since, including our own.  As brainsandgravy above has posted, you can very easily verify it for yourself, any school worthy of the title will asign its geometry and trigonometry students homework or classroom activities doing exacly that, and I again urge any undecided readers to go out and perform those tests for their own edification.

A baby could build a temple out of blocks without knowing anything about the alleged correctness of Geometry.

Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2016, 03:20:12 PM »
Do you know how long the base of the triangle will have to be for angle "A" to shrink to zero?
Answer: infinity.
It's simple mathematics.

There you go, using that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities. You are assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world. Zeno put the theory of a continuous universe to bed.
No. I'm using basic trigonometry to show you how perspective works. Like I said, anybody can test it for themselves at anytime in the real world using the information I posted above. You will always lose this debate against observable reality. Trigonometry is simply a way to quantify what we observe. It always works.

The math you are using is continuous and, therefore, wrong. We don't live in a continuous universe.

If you can disprove Zeno's Paradoxes which act as a disproof of that sort of math, you may use it as a rebuttal.


The math I am using is easily verifiable. I put it right there in front of you. It's triangles, the most basic trigonometry. Trigonometry has been tried, tested, verified, and validated for thousands of years. Instead of repeating your articles of faith over and over, I suggest you get a pen and paper or go out into the real world and test it yourself with some measurements and observations.
Avoid ignorance when it's easily avoidable.
Good luck.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2016, 03:25:46 PM »
Quote
If I take an object like an orange, how am I supposed to measure the imperfections and dimples on the surface to get an accurate circumference? If I tied a string around it would only be a guess, since obviously, the string isn't going into the dimples
Tell you what: do it anyway.  Ignore the dimples and imperfections.  Do the test as written, and do the math as specified.  You will find that within the limits of your ability to perform the experiment, Pi will never come anywhere near 4.00, but instead will always be closer to 3 than to 4.  In fact, throw away the orange and find something that appears smooth to an observer, like a soda can or drinking glass or water pipe.  Do the test with that.  At this point I am really wishing the example of an orange had never been put forth.

Taking your analogy of imperfections and dimples a little further: How far is it from one end of a basketball court to the other?  At human scale, walking across the court with a measuring tape, it is 94 feet.  To a microbe, who would have to travel up and down the imperfections in the floor's surface, it is probably twice that far, maybe more.  And yet, in the real world, we can use the 94 foot dimension and do useful things with it.  We can ignore the microbe-level imperfections and do real math with real number measured in the real world.  That's all Pi is: a number useful in the real world.  I can use 3.14159 to calculate how much material is needed to manufacture a cylindrical object of a desired diameter.  I can use 3.14159 to calculate how big a cylinder needs to be in order to contain a specified amount of product.  I can use 3.14159 to calculate the diameter of an object if I know that objects measurable perimeter, and having done so I can measure the object's diameter and find that it matches the calculated value.  None of these tasks demand some kind of ideal, perfect to infinitely small scale circle; a circle that is good enough to be considered circular by a human observer is good enough.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2016, 03:27:06 PM »
Avoid ignorance when it's easily avoidable.

Now THAT should be a bumper sticker!
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2016, 03:36:20 PM »
In which world are Zeno's paradoxes an "article of faith"? It must be an interesting place.

How do you feel about other elementary mathematical concepts? Are real numbers an "article of faith", too? Do you accept any other aspects of mathematics than "I like triangles"?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2016, 03:44:51 PM »
In which world are Zeno's paradoxes an "article of faith"? It must be an interesting place.

How do you feel about other elementary mathematical concepts? Are real numbers an "article of faith", too? Do you accept any other aspects of mathematics than "I like triangles"?
Zeno's paradox is a red herring. I'm talking about simple trigonometry. It's a statement of faith to claim that it is invalid. Actually, it's a statement of buffoonery. Trigonometric relationships are not theory in any way. They are fact. Again test it yourself.
If you're unclear how triangles relate to the topic of this thread, try this: see if you can identify any triangles in the illustration below:

Rama Set

Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #75 on: February 18, 2016, 04:08:19 PM »
since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate.

You don't know the universe is quantized, this is reaching.  In fact, the very nature of quantum mechanics is that the universe appears to be both continuous and quantized, and one property is only favored based on your measuring method.

There is also a paradox contained in your statement since the notion of quantization relies on the very math you are claiming is inaccurate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2016, 02:12:31 PM »
The math I am using is easily verifiable.

Please verify it then. Show us that two objects which recede infinitely into the distance on parallel lines will never touch.

Quote from: brainsandgravy
I put it right there in front of you. It's triangles, the most basic trigonometry. Trigonometry has been tried, tested, verified, and validated for thousands of years.

Who validated that an overhead receding body on a flat surface will never set? You are clearly putting your faith in a mathematical model to tell us how perspective works at long distances.

In which world are Zeno's paradoxes an "article of faith"? It must be an interesting place.

How do you feel about other elementary mathematical concepts? Are real numbers an "article of faith", too? Do you accept any other aspects of mathematics than "I like triangles"?
Zeno's paradox is a red herring. I'm talking about simple trigonometry. It's a statement of faith to claim that it is invalid. Actually, it's a statement of buffoonery. Trigonometric relationships are not theory in any way. They are fact. Again test it yourself.
If you're unclear how triangles relate to the topic of this thread, try this: see if you can identify any triangles in the illustration below:


The Greek math of Geometry and Trigonometry, with its hypothetical number lines and points in space, that Zeno is criticizing in his paradoxes, is really the same math you are trying to use here in your proofs. That type of continuous math really doesn't work, especially at extremes.

You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set. How do we know that? Under that model it is also impossible for a sun or a star to move any small distance across that number line at all.

It is erroneous to base conclusions for how the world should be at the  large or the small scales that one cannot experience, on nothing more than an ancient mathematical model of a perfect universe.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2016, 07:00:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #77 on: February 22, 2016, 12:06:19 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set. How do we know that? Under that model it is also impossible for a sun or a star to move any small distance across that number line at all.

It is erroneous to base conclusions for how the world should be at the  large or the small scales that one cannot experience, on nothing more than an ancient mathematical model of a perfect universe.
I am curious about this bit "You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set."
All very well for you to ask "How do we know that?"
All the evidence that we have is that light travels in straight lines. Do you have anything to the contrary?
Other than that "bendy light" is needed to support the Flat Earth Hypothesis.
I do just wonder what astronomers think of this idea?
Also is seems an absolutely amazing coincidence that the supposed "magnification" in the "atmolayer" interface (or whatever) is precisely the amount needed to keep the sun (and moon) to exactly the size expected on the globe earth.
In other words what "Flat Earth theorists" have done is to tranfer the curvature on the earth into the curvature of light! Looks highly suspicious to me.
I think poor old Occam has mislaid his razor!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #78 on: February 22, 2016, 06:20:54 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set. How do we know that? Under that model it is also impossible for a sun or a star to move any small distance across that number line at all.

It is erroneous to base conclusions for how the world should be at the  large or the small scales that one cannot experience, on nothing more than an ancient mathematical model of a perfect universe.
I am curious about this bit "You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set."
All very well for you to ask "How do we know that?"
All the evidence that we have is that light travels in straight lines. Do you have anything to the contrary?
Other than that "bendy light" is needed to support the Flat Earth Hypothesis.
I do just wonder what astronomers think of this idea?
Also is seems an absolutely amazing coincidence that the supposed "magnification" in the "atmolayer" interface (or whatever) is precisely the amount needed to keep the sun (and moon) to exactly the size expected on the globe earth.
In other words what "Flat Earth theorists" have done is to tranfer the curvature on the earth into the curvature of light! Looks highly suspicious to me.
I think poor old Occam has mislaid his razor!

Well, one thing I can speculate on is that if space is quantized, it is not possible for light to take all possible angles over very long distances. That is one example for why "sizing up" an ancient continuous model of a perfect universe is erroneous. We do not know about physics at larger scales.

It is incredibly short sighted to simply assume what will happen at all scales. We must begin from experience. Experience will tell us the truth independent of any particular model or theory. And if you cannot find an experience of two parallel lines or objects receding into infinity and never touching, then I am afraid you are delusional.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #79 on: February 22, 2016, 12:33:50 PM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set. How do we know that? Under that model it is also impossible for a sun or a star to move any small distance across that number line at all.

It is erroneous to base conclusions for how the world should be at the  large or the small scales that one cannot experience, on nothing more than an ancient mathematical model of a perfect universe.
I am curious about this bit "You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set."
All very well for you to ask "How do we know that?"
All the evidence that we have is that light travels in straight lines. Do you have anything to the contrary?
Other than that "bendy light" is needed to support the Flat Earth Hypothesis.
I do just wonder what astronomers think of this idea?
Also is seems an absolutely amazing coincidence that the supposed "magnification" in the "atmolayer" interface (or whatever) is precisely the amount needed to keep the sun (and moon) to exactly the size expected on the globe earth.
In other words what "Flat Earth theorists" have done is to tranfer the curvature on the earth into the curvature of light! Looks highly suspicious to me.
I think poor old Occam has mislaid his razor!

Well, one thing I can speculate on is that if space is quantized, it is not possible for light to take all possible angles over very long distances. That is one example for why "sizing up" an ancient continuous model of a perfect universe is erroneous. We do not know about physics at larger scales.

It is incredibly short sighted to simply assume what will happen at all scales. We must begin from experience. Experience will tell us the truth independent of any particular model or theory. And if you cannot find an experience of two parallel lines or objects receding into infinity and never touching, then I am afraid you are delusional.
Oh, come off it! How small is the Planck distance? About 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton - utterly miniscule compared to even the wavelength of green light (5.10 x 10-7 m)!

And you think that the directions of light might be quantised to an extent that might affect our observations.
In any case, what is it to you? Your whole universe is a tiny hemisphere 40,000 km in diameter and (I guess) 20,000 km high, so why are you bothering to discuss long distances!