21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 09:07:02 PM »

How far away (when viewed from the side) would something 3,000 miles long need to be for it to appear as a single point in the distance?

to be pedant, the question is not well posed... the human eye can resolve I believe ~0,02° so to the naked eye it should be I dunno a few million miles away? You do the math, it's late here 
But if you use a telescope you'll push it farther away
EDIT: I mean, by way of comparison, and I know it might not fly well in here, the moon is ~2000 miles wide, and ~240.000 miles away, and you still see it quite clearly

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: October 06, 2017, 12:29:45 PM »

Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?

When it is sunset the clouds would see the sun from the side at the horizon. From the sun's perspective it would likewise see the clouds from the side, at the horizon.

he/she said below, not from the side

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 07:08:16 AM »

Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.

Why? I don't see the relevance of bringing in a specific distance and height of objects and plotting a diagram of them. With the topic, we are talking about perspective and it working at distances and you want to bring in a specific dimension diagram of objects at a distance.

you know, applying your model to an actual distance is the only way to ascertain whether it is correct or not.

Aperture is not the only relevant thing.

What a way to criticize what I'm saying, that aperture is all that's relevant to perspective (I didn't imply it was all there is). You people completely ignored it and assumed all angles are visible to the eye since light is in straight lines and missed that we can't perceive every angle due to limitations of aperture and perspective angles to which we perceive as a horizon and point of convergence.

the reason why we can't perceive every angle is exactly what I've explained about the density of the receptors. 

Lights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.

Correct, the horizon is when the perspective lines approach each other at an angle we can't perceive, it's an illusion of perspective.
Farther perspective lines will converge steeper due to them being at a greater horizontal distance from our line of sight.

The sun, in your model, is 6000  miles away and 3000 miles up.

Who said my model? I'd be willing to entertain that the sun is at these dimensions but not claiming it must be and is not relevant to my point.

That's a ~20° angle of incidence. You have plenty resolution to see it up in the sky. Basic perspective.

Only, the sun's height line of descent would be steeper due to its vertical distance from our line of sight and so descends to meet the imperceptible angle at a larger angle. Think of a rail at a relatively far horizontal distance from your line of sight to convergence, the angle it reaches the point of convergence is larger due to its longer deviation from our line of sight. The same happens with the sun, it meets the horizon at the top of our uniform frame, where our entire field of vision converges. The top of that frame would be the steepest descent into the horizon. Higher objects will appear to move farther before reaching the same apparent horizon, which means they descend at a steeper angle proportion with a farther actual distance.
All objects will descend into our horizon line, which is from an imperceptible angle of view, by angling into it with accordance to altitude.

and this is where you stopped making sense, i'm sorry. Why should the sun be perceived differently from anything else? Suddenly you feel the need to change the methodology and come up with a different kind of perspective, where light stops working as it should, and the angles of incidence don't hold anymore. Please draw that diagram. If you don't believe me, do the reverse calculation. Look at what distance the sun should be from you, to be at a small enough angle to be near the vanishing point.

EDIT: I've seen know the image you attached, and that's a perfectly valid view. You do get how it works, why do you refuse to apply the method at the actual proposed distances?

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 05:48:40 AM »

Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?

I don't necessarily accept that but am willing to grant it for this case, since light can travel in straight lines and what I'm saying here be correct.

Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.

It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.

Not to perspective, I don't need to explain the biology of the eye to explain perspective lines, or that eyes have aperture like a lens.

see, that's where you are wrong. Aperture is not the only relevant thing. Lights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.
Now. The sun, in your model, is 6000  miles away and 3000 miles up. That's a ~20° angle of incidence. You have plenty resolution to see it up in the sky. Basic perspective. End of the story.

EDIT: you can compare the density of the receptors in the eye to the resolution in pixels of a digital camera. The higher the resolution, the further away the tracks will "meet" in a single pixel, giving you the illusion that they actually meet.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 04, 2017, 10:27:13 PM »

There's also another thing to keep in mind: some of the distances in any flat earth map are going to be 2-3 times bigger than what we would expect. No error bar in these flight times can make up for the fact that in the bipolar map, to fly from Tokyo to los Angeles you'd have to cross all Asia, Europe, the Atlantic ocean and North America or that in the unipolar map to go from Sidney to Rio De Janeiro you'd have to cross all Asia, the Antarctic and all North and central America. A 40% error is peanuts, compared to this...

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 04, 2017, 07:47:07 AM »

uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things?

Light, your eyes, and aperture. Basic.

Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?

How do the eye works?

You asked how our vision works in response to my claim of how our vision is limited. This isn't biology we are discussing here, take that somewhere else.

It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.

I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.

We don't, there you go making up nonsense about how what I'm saying connects to other things and something I supposedly refuse along with another group.

did you make my exercise for the reader?

draw the side, top and resulting perspective view of a room with a lamp hanging from the ceiling at a 2 m height, 4 m away from the observer.

I forgot the front view, but it's the same.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 04, 2017, 05:50:29 AM »

how, pray tell, does our vision works?

It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point.

uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things? How do the eye works?

It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.

I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.

EDIT: exercise for the reader: draw the side, top and resulting perspective view of a room with a lamp hanging from the ceiling at a 2 m height, 4 m away from the observer.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 03, 2017, 08:49:27 PM »

there should be closed parentheses after the h term before /I in the adjustment term.  It gets hard to read with all the markup it took to document that semi-correctly and it won't let me edit.

you could have spared the effort 
The first half of the post is partly taken care of a priori, and partly by the averages. We'll see how those error bars look like. The second half is irrelevant, because no one cares about the actual distances, only the ratio is relevant.
Did you read the thread before writing that wall of formulae? 

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 03, 2017, 03:15:42 PM »

Please explain how we can know the distance between LA and New York by looking at the arrival times of airplanes without knowing anything about their speed.

no. Distance. Is. Needed.
Look up proportions in the dictionary.
He's comparing times.
He doesn't give a faq about distance.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 03, 2017, 03:10:30 PM »

Cruising speed is defined "a speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical."

This does NOT suggest that a plane will fly at its cruising speed for the entirety of the journey. Your car might have a comfortable "cruising speed" of 55 miles per hour, but that does not suggest that you spend significant time at that speed on your trip.

you  are either entirely clueless on how companies work, or you are just grasping at straws, I don't know. Of course they try to fly as much as possible at cruise speed. It's a matter of money!

They schedule the flights lenient enough that it is possible for them to come in quite early.

Here are some [snip]

Of course there are margins. Of course some flight will come somewhat early, just as some will come somewhat late. That what's the averaging is for.
How much is the average margin? The error bars will tell, but I'm willing to bet under the 15%-20%, which is still more than enough to sink both maps proposed on the wiki. No company would knowingly waste flight time... time is money.

By the way, that the scheduled times are rounded up in excess is actually irrelevant, because that's done across the board,  and won't impact the proportions between flights.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 03, 2017, 09:06:55 AM »

The angle is decreasing because of how distances and wavelengths of light hit our eyes or however you are viewing it, the geometric angle indeed plays a role but the angle is not our perception.

how, pray tell, does our vision works?

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What makes the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets rotate?

« on: October 03, 2017, 06:51:34 AM »

Just *how* they do it would be a start, let alone why. Maybe a diagram could be sketched over the FE official map.
Oh wait

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 03, 2017, 05:26:14 AM »

Explain to us why you think God is the creator, for once and all

sure, in another thread. So that maybe there's space left in this one, just in case someone wants to answer the frigging OP instead of constantly derailing. Thanks.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 09:56:09 PM »

So, page 2 and no answer with a lick of explanatory power. Par for the course, I guess. Anyone else?

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 02, 2017, 01:00:58 PM »

Well 3dgeek, tbh you are still leaving out some possible sources of variance which might screw things up (I mentioned then above), but I'm willing to bet that he'll have only some parts of the map with inconsistent results (e.g. the middle east).
I'm curious to see how the data and margins of error turn out in the end.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 02, 2017, 06:14:45 AM »

Do you actually know this or are you making stuff up? Over long distances there is little variation in aircraft type and cruise speed.

Incorrect.

Here's a list of the aircrafts with the longest range, it took me 2 minutes with Google, I have no time for a more in-depth search.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature-the-longest-range-airliners-in-the-world/
Look at the cruise speeds: they are within a 5% range.

I'd also like to see the reference for the huge variations midflight. Do you realize that it would be impossible for companies to schedule flights, if the speed varied constantly by much?

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 05:57:11 AM »

that is true but we can see the moon move while in the sky not zipping by but if there was a telescope pointing towards the moon at night and u watched the telescope for half an hour u would see it move

of course it moves, it just doesn't move so fast to circle the world two times a day... That is a set fact that neither group here would dispute, I think.
Today, for instance, the moon around my parts will rise sometime past 5 pm and set at around 3 am. It goes slowly

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 02, 2017, 05:42:08 AM »

Are you just willfully not understanding what's going on here? Or do you have an actual problem you can elucidate for us? Speed isn't a factor here. Time is all that matters. The time a flight takes is generally consistent between two points. There's not much variance to that data. This makes it a great metric to use in place of distance. Unless minutes on a FE are different too.

Time alone is useless without knowledge of how fast the craft is traveling.

have you aver heard the concept of proportions?

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 02, 2017, 05:41:32 AM »

Averaging a groundspeed that is based on Round Earth coordinates will give you an average derived from Round Earth coordinates. Such an effort will  be invalid for determining whether the Round Earth coordinate system is correct.

I understand that you desperately need a straw to grasp, but, again, speed doesn't enter in the equation. He's averaging times. There is literally no reference to the shape of earth there.
If you want to undermine this methodology, you have only a few options:
To say that planes fly at such different speeds that flight times don't mean anything, but that's not my experience in long distance flights, and this will be anyway readily apparent in the error bars.
To say that planes fly at different speeds in different areas of the planet, which is kinda dumb.
To say that planes fly complicated paths instead of the shorter route, which is also kinda dumb, except for some parts of the planet. (I predict that flight times around the middle East will be a bit skewed)

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 01, 2017, 10:37:07 PM »

i genuinely think i have an explanation for the two high tides and its simply that the GIF on the FAQs is slightly wrong. Okay so the moon pulls the tides out with its mass and there is two high tides a day but in the GIF it only shows the moon being in one place daily but the moon is moving faster than the sun and it show up twice in a day this can also explain why the moon is visible in daylight sometimes and also why it rises in different places it inst moving in a circular motion it is moving in a more crazy motion and a lot faster. this theory also explains eclipses and why the don't last for a day and are only view able in some countries  correct me if u think i'm wrong, have another theory or dont understand,

you know, that would actually be a neat explanation (better than j-man's at any rate) but I don't think is confirmed by observations by either "camp"... fact is, we don't see the moon zip by at that speed. It would have to cross the sky in under 6 hours!