[rabinoz]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

No, I do not agree! I really think you view it all screwed up. Can't you see the difference between appear to merge and simply to merge?

The math does NOT contradict the fact "that the perspective lines appear to merge"! Euclidean geometry (I don't think Euclid actually quite stated this!) "says they will never merge".

Can't you see the massive difference between "never converge" and "never appear to converge" - they are quite different statements?

Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!

[rabinoz]

Our theory is backed up with observation.

You mean the observation that the sun appears the same circular size in the sky and sets below the horizon casting light on the underneath of the clouds?
You mean the observation that as ships sail away they disappear from the bottom leaving only the top visible?
You mean the observation that the entire earth sees the moon in the same phase on the same day?
You mean the observation that a flight from Sydney to South America only takes 14 hours?
You mean the observation that laser ranging places the moon greater than a couple of thousand kilometres above the surface of the earth?
You mean the observation of photos from space that show the earth as a globe?
You mean the observation that shows satellites orbiting the earth?
You mean the observation that wireless  communications have to take the curvature into the calculations to work?
You mean the observation that shows the horizon as a clear line instead of fading into the distance?
You mean the observation of solar flares interacting with the earth's magnetic field at night time?
You mean the observation that shows the stars circling in opposite directions in each hemisphere?
You mean the observation that the constellations are different in each hemisphere?
You mean the observation that shows rockets leaving the earth and not hitting any "firmament"?
You mean the observation that shows the moon and sun not to fall to the earth due to universal acceleration?

Should I continue?

You are really slow! You just need a sprinkle of magic dust ^[1], bendy light^[2] and whatever else needs dreaming up (dark energy?).
I think the "bow wave" or "aetheric whirlpools"^[3] somehow shield things on the earth (and an unknown distance above it) from the effects on UA.

See it's all completely explainable.

Sorry for indulging in the lowest form of wit, but do people really believe this?


[1] Usually called "Aether" (not to be confused with "the Khan's ether") , I think it lubricates the UA. Might be mistaken!
[2] A bit of magical refraction in the air or somewhere that bend sunlight and moonlight from an actual position 20° (or so) above the horizon to below it!
[3]  Of course  all these things have been directly observed - that's Zetecism isn't it!

[Tom Bishop]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

How do we agree? Your take is the sun/moon sink below the surface of a FE. This is mathematically impossible. You can keep playing at semantics, but the math proves prospective as applied to FE will NEVER be possible. You know it, I know it and the rest of RE knows it.

We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.

You agree that perspective lines will appear to merge, but actually do not.

I do not see where the contradiction is.

[Tom Bishop]

Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!

Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.

[rabinoz]

Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!

Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.

You claimed "Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!"

Can't you see the difference! You said "perspective lines appear to merge" sure they do appear to converge!
But then you go on to say "in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge"!

There is no contradiction! The "math", as you call it, does not say that they will never appear to merge it says they will never merge. So no I do not agree at all. That word "never" is so crucial.

I think you are still trying to prove those Greek Philosophers wrong! But, guess what, the only things that have survived are those that have stood the test of time, and Euclid has been one. He hasn't been proved wrong in this area, but different geometries (spaces) have been developed. So much else from that era has dropped by the wayside.

Seems that your philosophy is a bit like

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'

[Unsure101]

We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.

Please explain how this actually occurs?
If the sun/moon are spheres (as declared by your wiki), but do not sink, how are they both observed to sink, illuminate the underneath of the clouds and appear as circles as they sink below the horizon?

[Round fact]

Mr. Bishop has inadvertently talked himself into a corner that contradicts his site's Wiki and FAQ.

[Sputnik]

5 days and more than 30 views and not one single FE person can respond? Well I knew when I posted the question it could not be reasonable responded to, but I was hoping for some entertaining responses.

They dont know and they dont care. They dont even really believe this stuff. At best, its an exercise in extreme skepticism. In practice, however, its just a troll job.

You cant come at these people directly. Even though they're not that smart, they have experience with direct attacks. You'll have to come up with a half-assed troll job yourself, to get any responses.

[juner]

5 days and more than 30 views and not one single FE person can respond? Well I knew when I posted the question it could not be reasonable responded to, but I was hoping for some entertaining responses.

They dont know and they dont care. They dont even really believe this stuff. At best, its an exercise in extreme skepticism. In practice, however, its just a troll job.

You cant come at these people directly. Even though they're not that smart, they have experience with direct attacks. You'll have to come up with a half-assed troll job yourself, to get any responses.

Oh hey, baseless accusations. That's some quality round earth logic.

[Tom Bishop]

Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!

Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.

You claimed "Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!"

Can't you see the difference! You said "perspective lines appear to merge" sure they do appear to converge!
But then you go on to say "in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge"!

There is no contradiction! The "math", as you call it, does not say that they will never appear to merge it says they will never merge. So no I do not agree at all. That word "never" is so crucial.

I think you are still trying to prove those Greek Philosophers wrong! But, guess what, the only things that have survived are those that have stood the test of time, and Euclid has been one. He hasn't been proved wrong in this area, but different geometries (spaces) have been developed. So much else from that era has dropped by the wayside.

Seems that your philosophy is a bit like

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'

Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.

We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.

What do you disagree with?

[Tom Bishop]

We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.

Please explain how this actually occurs?
If the sun/moon are spheres (as declared by your wiki), but do not sink, how are they both observed to sink, illuminate the underneath of the clouds and appear as circles as they sink below the horizon?

The sun is also going behind a lot of atmosphere as it recedes. When it is near the horizon it is already dimmed by an order of magnitude than when it overhead at noonday. You can look directly at it without squinting. After it merges into the horizon the sky is still relatively illuminated. It takes several hours for the blackness of night to set in, which indicates that the opacity of the atmosphere has increased significantly.

The clouds appear to illuminate from the "bottom" because the sun's rays are hitting the backside of that cloud at a more horizontal angle. You are standing beneath the cloud, so you are only seeing that back end which is illuminated, which looks like the "bottom" since the backside is further from you than the frontside of the cloud.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.

We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.

What do you disagree with?

Let's compare the train track scenario with the sun scenario.

Observations:

• The distance between the parallel train tracks appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.
• The distance between the sun and the horizon appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.

Since we know that the train tracks are parallel to each other, it seems plausible that the sun's path might also be parallel to the earth, right? Excellent! Flat earth for life!

Let's think about it a little deeper though. What determines the apparent distance between the train tracks? The deciding factor is the ratio of the actual distance between the tracks, to the distance to the point we are looking at. If we are standing on one of the tracks, the angular diameter of the tracks at a given distance is:

a = arctan(w/d)

a = angular diameter of the tracks at the specified distance. This decreases, approaching zero, as the tracks recede into the distance. Notice: a only becomes zero when w/d is zero.
w = physical distance between the tracks. This stays constant if the tracks are parallel.
d = the distance to the point on the tracks we are looking at. Notice: w/d is only zero when d is infinite. Of course, d can't actually be infinite in reality, so w/d is never actually zero. It can be very very small though, and appear to the human eye to be zero.

Now let's apply this to the sun scenario:
a = angular diameter between the sun and the horizon.
w = physical distance between the sun and the earth. 3000 miles seems to be the most quoted number by flat-earthers.
d = the distance between you and the spot the sun is hovering over the earth. For someone on the equator, during the equinox, the maximum this can be is the equatorial diameter of the earth. About 8000 miles.

Now, we want to see how small we can make the angle between the sun and the horizon be. To do that, we have to find the smallest possible value of w/d = 3000/8000. This gives a corresponding value for a = arctan(3000/8000) = 21 degrees.

Therefore, the SMALLEST angle possible between the sun and the horizon would be 21 degrees on a flat earth.

The difference between the train tracks and the sun is that the train tracks continues in a straight line. The ratio between the width of the tracks to the distance from the tracks continues to get smaller. The sun takes a circular path, and the ratio of the distance between the earth and the sun to the distance away from the sun never gets very small before the sun loops back around.

Therefore, a circular path of the sun above the earth is impossible. A similar argument can be made for the setting of Polaris behind the horizon as latitude decreases.

[Round fact]

Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.

We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.

What do you disagree with?

Let's compare the train track scenario with the sun scenario.

Observations:

• The distance between the parallel train tracks appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.
• The distance between the sun and the horizon appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.

Since we know that the train tracks are parallel to each other, it seems plausible that the sun's path might also be parallel to the earth, right? Excellent! Flat earth for life!

Let's think about it a little deeper though. What determines the apparent distance between the train tracks? The deciding factor is the ratio of the actual distance between the tracks, to the distance to the point we are looking at. If we are standing on one of the tracks, the angular diameter of the tracks at a given distance is:

a = arctan(w/d)

a = angular diameter of the tracks at the specified distance. This decreases, approaching zero, as the tracks recede into the distance. Notice: a only becomes zero when w/d is zero.
w = physical distance between the tracks. This stays constant if the tracks are parallel.
d = the distance to the point on the tracks we are looking at. Notice: w/d is only zero when d is infinite. Of course, d can't actually be infinite in reality, so w/d is never actually zero. It can be very very small though, and appear to the human eye to be zero.

Now let's apply this to the sun scenario:
a = angular diameter between the sun and the horizon.
w = physical distance between the sun and the earth. 3000 miles seems to be the most quoted number by flat-earthers.
d = the distance between you and the spot the sun is hovering over the earth. For someone on the equator, during the equinox, the maximum this can be is the equatorial diameter of the earth. About 8000 miles.

Now, we want to see how small we can make the angle between the sun and the horizon be. To do that, we have to find the smallest possible value of w/d = 3000/8000. This gives a corresponding value for a = arctan(3000/8000) = 21 degrees.

Therefore, the SMALLEST angle possible between the sun and the horizon would be 21 degrees on a flat earth.

The difference between the train tracks and the sun is that the train tracks continues in a straight line. The ratio between the width of the tracks to the distance from the tracks continues to get smaller. The sun takes a circular path, and the ratio of the distance between the earth and the sun to the distance away from the sun never gets very small before the sun loops back around.

Therefore, a circular path of the sun above the earth is impossible. A similar argument can be made for the setting of Polaris behind the horizon as latitude decreases.

Except the distance between the rails of the track are 4ft 8.5" (USA/Canada). FE claims an Earth Sun distance of 3,000 miles.  The Sun is moving over the Equator on a disk that measures approx 12,600 miles in diameter.

Geometry says that minimum angle of the Sun above the FE for an observer standing on the North Pole or the "Ice Wall" is 26.57 degrees. Figuring in the average refraction that 26.57 degrees is now 26.5 degrees.


There is no way mathematically, or otherwise, the Sun can appear to merge with the horizon under FET.

[Sputnik]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
How remiss of me!

Of course receding parallel lines "appear to touch", who would query that (in Euclidean and I assume almost any space)?
But receding parallel lines might not appear to meet at the "horizon". Here is a ships wahe extending nice and straight to the horizon, but they don't converge ON the horizon.
That seems quite significant to me. But of course I know that a bit of magical "Rowbotham perspective will fix that".

P&O Ships wake to horizon

It is obvious from simply looking, that people all the way down the street are actually tiny people. Plus, when I look down at the street from the upper floors of any tall building, there are even tinier people!!! I've never met one in person, but hopefully one day I will.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
How remiss of me!

Of course receding parallel lines "appear to touch", who would query that (in Euclidean and I assume almost any space)?
But receding parallel lines might not appear to meet at the "horizon". Here is a ships wahe extending nice and straight to the horizon, but they don't converge ON the horizon.
That seems quite significant to me. But of course I know that a bit of magical "Rowbotham perspective will fix that".

P&O Ships wake to horizon

I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.

On another note, I glanced at the rest of your photobucket uploads, all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration.

[Round fact]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
How remiss of me!

Of course receding parallel lines "appear to touch", who would query that (in Euclidean and I assume almost any space)?
But receding parallel lines might not appear to meet at the "horizon". Here is a ships wahe extending nice and straight to the horizon, but they don't converge ON the horizon.
That seems quite significant to me. But of course I know that a bit of magical "Rowbotham perspective will fix that".

P&O Ships wake to horizon

I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.

On another note, I glanced at the rest of your photobucket uploads, all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration.

Completely dishonest. You used an arbitrary reference point, one designed to get the results YOU need, rather that the wake disturbance that is clearly parallel  the POV.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Except the distance between the rails of the track are 4ft 8.5" (USA/Canada).

Yes... I didn't claim otherwise. I just said it is constant, and that the ratio of width to distance is small. Why start the sentence with "except"?

FE claims an Earth Sun distance of 3,000 miles.  The Sun is moving over the Equator on a disk that measures approx 12,600 miles in diameter.

Geometry says that minimum angle of the Sun above the FE for an observer standing on the North Pole or the "Ice Wall" is 26.57 degrees. Figuring in the average refraction that 26.57 degrees is now 26.5 degrees.

Did you actually read my entire post? I also used the 3000 mile distance. I used someone standing at the equator instead of the poles since the equator is much more accessible. I also gave flat-earthers the benefit of the doubt by using the distance to the sun at midnight (long after it has actually set). A better distance would be the distance to the sun at 9pm, which would be 4000*sqrt(2), which gives a = arctan(3000/(4000*sqrt(2))) = 28 degrees.

[rabinoz]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
How remiss of me!

Of course receding parallel lines "appear to touch", who would query that (in Euclidean and I assume almost any space)?
But receding parallel lines might not appear to meet at the "horizon". Here is a ships wake extending nice and straight to the horizon, but they don't converge ON the horizon.
That seems quite significant to me. But of course I know that a bit of magical "Rowbotham perspective will fix that".

P&O Ships wake to horizon

I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.

On another note, I glanced at the rest of your photobucket uploads, all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration.

Oh, rubbish! What are you doing? Trying Tom Bishop style perspective. I am still wondering just what you'd "hate to break to "me.

My whole point is that the horizon is NOT the "vanishing point, as that photo clearly indicates, simply because the horizon is not a great distance away.
Also there are photos of ships disappearing behind the horizon, with buildings clearly shown (though with hundreds of feet hidden) behind the horizon. There is nothing magic about the visible horizon that makes it the true vanishing point! That is only a drawing convention. Not a "Law of Perspective"!

Just what are you red lines tracing out - certainly not the edges of the wake.
By the way, if you bother to look, there are many similar photographs of wakes "converging" past the horizon - it's been shown as one way to calculate (at least approximately) the horizon distance.

Inquisitive bloke aren't you? "all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration", so what that is what that album is for!

Maybe you should try to illustrate the points you make? Oops, you never make any points yourself, you just try to tear down everyone else's,

I guess that's your appointed task, CHIEF WRECKER! What about something constructive for a change - even some argument supporting something!

Of course, that would be difficult for you. You don't seem to have any thoughts of you own - care to share your theories, we put ours on the line!

[Round fact]

Except the distance between the rails of the track are 4ft 8.5" (USA/Canada).

Yes... I didn't claim otherwise. I just said it is constant, and that the ratio of width to distance is small. Why start the sentence with "except"?

FE claims an Earth Sun distance of 3,000 miles.  The Sun is moving over the Equator on a disk that measures approx 12,600 miles in diameter.

Geometry says that minimum angle of the Sun above the FE for an observer standing on the North Pole or the "Ice Wall" is 26.57 degrees. Figuring in the average refraction that 26.57 degrees is now 26.5 degrees.

Did you actually read my entire post? I also used the 3000 mile distance. I used someone standing at the equator instead of the poles since the equator is much more accessible. I also gave flat-earthers the benefit of the doubt by using the distance to the sun at midnight (long after it has actually set). A better distance would be the distance to the sun at 9pm, which would be 4000*sqrt(2), which gives a = arctan(3000/(4000*sqrt(2))) = 28 degrees.

Sorry. I was responding to you but thinking of another post. My bad.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
How remiss of me!

Of course receding parallel lines "appear to touch", who would query that (in Euclidean and I assume almost any space)?
But receding parallel lines might not appear to meet at the "horizon". Here is a ships wahe extending nice and straight to the horizon, but they don't converge ON the horizon.
That seems quite significant to me. But of course I know that a bit of magical "Rowbotham perspective will fix that".

P&O Ships wake to horizon

I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.

On another note, I glanced at the rest of your photobucket uploads, all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration.

Completely dishonest. You used an arbitrary reference point, one designed to get the results YOU need, rather that the wake disturbance that is clearly parallel  the POV.

Are you kidding me? I used an actually horizontal line obviously parallel to the ground. Why would the wake be the right thing to use anyway? First of all, it would be maybe 15-20 feet below the point of view. Secondly the wake tapers out as you move, not sure if you've ever seen wake behind a boat or not.

So tell me again, who arbitrarily chose something to draw lines on something?