*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12850
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Have a video for you guys
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2020, 07:01:41 PM »
But you don't need a hypothetical scenario, and you don't need a series of equidistant stars.
You're the one who presented it. I'm telling you it's unnecessary, and that you confused yourself by relying on it.

Why doesn't the angle change
Because there is absolutely nothing that would cause it to change, and your expectation continues to be rooted in something you refuse to specify.

It does not apply to anything PRODUCING OR REFLECTING LIGHT.
A body that neither produces nor reflects light is not a body that will be seen, in most circumstances. I hope that much is clear, at least?

However, if said object was a Laser and  twice the distance of the "vanishing point" away or at half the angular resolution the human eye can see, then laser was turned on and aimed at the observers eye... the observer can then see it.
The Sun is not a laser, and anything that's beyond the vanishing point will not be seen.

Has he witnessed Orion's belt become Orion's watchstrap as it sets in the west?
Yes, Longitube, let's think about this one very hard. Have I personally witnessed something that I repeatedly and emphatically state does not happen? I have every faith in your cognitive ability.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2020, 07:08:00 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Have a video for you guys
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2020, 08:37:15 PM »
... The separation between a straight line of points would decrease with distance regardless of the angle between the horizon and the line in question (in other words: the angle between stars *does* appear to decrease ...

My apologies: I assumed you meant something by the above quoted statement. I'm trying to imagine how the sky as described in the wiki would look with stars a few thousand miles above us moving over our heads, how they would look as they move in the course of a night. It doesn't square with what we see in the actual sky. Constellations a few thousand miles above would most certainly change in size and the angle between these stars change as they passed from horizon to horizon, only in the real night sky they don't.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2020, 08:38:51 PM by Longtitube »
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Have a video for you guys
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2020, 08:45:33 PM »
Because there is absolutely nothing that would cause it to change, and your expectation continues to be rooted in something you refuse to specify.

Well, it's great that you've actually addressed some of the questions I asked of you - thank you. So you agree that the lampposts in the picture display reducing azimuth angle as they recede into the distance, and you also agree that star constellations don't exhibit this behaviour as they get lower in the night sky.

So that then raises the question: what is different about the stars? Why, if their position in the sky is dictated by perspective effects as the wiki states, do they not seem to exhibit the other perspective effects that we see elsewhere?

RE proponents like myself would say that's simply because they are thousands of light years away from us on here on our oblate spheroid, rotating earth, in orbit around the sun, and that the position of the stars and other celestial bodies is entirely consistent with this.

FET proponents need to come up with an explanation. Over to you.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12850
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Have a video for you guys
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2020, 11:54:30 PM »
My apologies: I assumed you meant something by the above quoted statement.
I did.

and you also agree that star constellations don't exhibit this behaviour as they get lower in the night sky.
For the fifth time: the idea that this effect would magically be applied twice to star constellations is nonsense. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing - your statement is so incomprehensible that I'm not assigning it a truth value.

So that then raises the question: what is different about the stars?
Nothing. You're the only person who states that something is different, but you're refusing to clarify why you think so, and you demand an explanation for a contrast that isn't there.

FET proponents need to come up with an explanation. Over to you.
I'm gonna give you one last chance to respond to what's already been said to you five times. Afterwards, I'll accept that you either don't understand English, or are deliberately wasting everyone's time.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2020, 11:58:30 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2611
    • View Profile
Re: Have a video for you guys
« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2020, 12:02:41 AM »
It does not apply to anything PRODUCING OR REFLECTING LIGHT.
A body that neither produces nor reflects light is not a body that will be seen, in most circumstances. I hope that much is clear, at least?

However, if said object was a Laser and  twice the distance of the "vanishing point" away or at half the angular resolution the human eye can see, then laser was turned on and aimed at the observers eye... the observer can then see it.
The Sun is not a laser, and anything that's beyond the vanishing point will not be seen.

Objects which cannot be seen with the naked eye in ambient light become visible when they either emit light or reflect light toward the observer. This is the principle of the heliograph, a reflecting mirror which, when angled toward the observer, can be seen at distances far in excess of the distance at which the observer could discern the mirror undirected.

How would one define what is beyond the vanishing point?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12850
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Have a video for you guys
« Reply #25 on: December 24, 2020, 12:14:36 AM »
Objects which cannot be seen with the naked eye in ambient light become visible when they either emit light or reflect light toward the observer.
Entirely irrelevant for this discussion. Also: no shit, when you change the properties of a body, its properties change.

How would one define what is beyond the vanishing point?
Familiarise yourself with the basic terms of the debate before joining it. I'm not here to be your remedial high school tutor.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2020, 12:17:53 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Have a video for you guys
« Reply #26 on: December 24, 2020, 08:40:15 AM »

For the fifth time: the idea that this effect would magically be applied twice to star constellations is nonsense. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing - your statement is so incomprehensible that I'm not assigning it a truth value.
Who said anything about twice? The wiki says:

Quote
In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.

If two stars are 10 degrees apart when they are above you, and if perspective is causing them to 'descend into the horizon' as they 'recede' then, just like the lampposts, we would expect that 10 degree separation to change. FET is utterly hopeless on this - the above quote completely ignores the fact the height of the lampposts also appears to reduce, but yet the vertical separation of the stars remains the same, just as it ignores the the issue I've already described regarding the lateral separation. The wiki, and many of the arguments on here, are just a confused mess of arguments about perspective, vanishing points and EA, oblivious to the fact that there is no combination of these things that would retain the size and shape of the constellations as they move around the sky.

So that then raises the question: what is different about the stars?
Nothing. You're the only person who states that something is different, but you're refusing to clarify why you think so, and you demand an explanation for a contrast that isn't there.

I'm not the only person - you yourself have agreed that the stars retain their angular separation but the lampposts don't, and other than vague, non-specific references to the wiki, you haven't actually explained the difference at all. You can criticise my arguments all you like, but anybody reading this thread will see that I've pointed an obvious flaw in the FET argument, and shown with simple diagrams that there is a massive problem. You can assert that this is 'incomprehensible' all you like, but your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12850
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Have a video for you guys
« Reply #27 on: December 24, 2020, 10:36:18 AM »
If two stars are 10 degrees apart when they are above you, and if perspective is causing them to 'descend into the horizon' as they 'recede' then, just like the lampposts, we would expect that 10 degree separation to change.
For the sixth time: this continues not to be the case. You have once again failed to explain why you think otherwise, merely stating that the effect would magically be applied a second time as the stars approach the horizon.

I'm not the only person - you yourself have agreed that the stars retain their angular separation but the lampposts don't
I didn't. You claimed I did multiple times, and each time I responded by pointing this out. Let's be consistent and say it again: I do not claim this, you are the only one who does, for reasons you refuse to explain.

You are blatantly trying to waste our time. Let me make it clear that I won't allow you to continue. If you want to discuss this, do. If you want to continue restating the same thing and complaining that FET isn't compatible with your incoherent misunderstanding of optics, it's not gonna happen. Since you're already sitting on two warnings for trying to disrupt other threads, consider this your third and final one.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2020, 10:39:50 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice