[inquisitive]

Tom - this, and you, ignore what is seen and measured from multiple locations at the same time.

Strange that nobody else agrees with you here.

[AATW]

p-brane. An apt name...
Quite simply, he and Rowbowtham are wrong about perspective. And here's why. Think about how you see things. Rays from a light source reflect off an object and in to your eye.
So if I am on a flat plane and so is someone/something else then there is no reason I shouldn't be able to see them because there will always be a clear line of sight between me and the other person/object:



The only limiting factors are clarity of the atmosphere and how good my eyes are. There will come a point where I can no longer see the person simply because the resolution of my eyes isn't good enough - if you think about it, the further apart the two people are above the smaller the angle of the rays at my eye and therefore the smaller the image on my retina. There will come a point where I am no longer able to see them, when that happens I could use a telescope and they would become visible again, if the atmospheric conditions allow.

If a person is walking away from me and going over a hill though, THEN the person would sink below the horizon because the curve of the hill would physically stop the rays of light getting to me:



The further away they go away from me on a circle (or, in 3D a sphere), the less I can see of them. In the above I only see their head because a ray of light from the person's feet to my eyes is blocked by the curve, there is no straight line between the lower part of the person and my eye that light can travel.

As I said above, a shadow is cast because the photons are physically blocked by the object. The angle and length of the shadow depend on the PHYSICAL relationship between the positions of the light source and object. So long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically on the horizon so either the light is bending or the sun is disappearing below the curve of the earth. Pick one. But those are the only two explanations which can work.

If you think the perspective argument holds any water then build a basic scale model to show how this would work. I have seen YouTube videos where someone shows with a coin how a sun could "set" on a flat earth using a coin and a table but
a) Those videos show the coin ON the table, not above it and
b) To produce the effect the camera is held at what in real life would be below ground level.

[Macarios]

P-brane's video has several flaws.
Let me tell you first about his "without taking observer into account".
I already mentoned sextant and its low price.
(There is even cheaper version that can be made from school protractor, thread, and small hanging object.)



It shows you that angles are measured DIRECTLY FROM THE OBSERVER.
How else you measure those "theta1" and "theta2" here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun ?


Next, we do know, or can measure by ourselves angular diameter of the Sun without glare blur around it.
Sun filter will eliminate glare and we will see just the Sun itself.
Sun filter can be simple welding glass or welding mask from Lowe's.
Then measure with caliper.
In P-brane's video it is correctly shown as constant, which ruined his perspective.
Constant Sun covers at close distance just one perspective line, and far away covers 5 perspective lines.
Either lines don't show perspective well, or Sun doesn't follow perspective, which means lines mean nothing.

Next, the speed of the Sun across the sky doesn't depend on observer.
But what observer sees depends on shape of Sun's trajectory.
Sun DOES have constant angular speed across the Earth, traveling around Northern Hub 15 degrees per hour.
Sun also travels 15 degrees per hour in observer's view.
If observer is at Equator Sun can not revolve simultaneously around two points more than revolving radius apart.

If Sun for equinox travels 1670 km/h above equator, it will above equatorial observer at noon travel 15 degrees per hour and at 3 pm 10.5 degrees per hour and at 4:30 pm 7.5 degrees per hour.
Measured directly from observer. Same perspective that reduces apparent height of the sun also reduces traveling segments of Sun's path.

At 7:00 he shows vertical plane in perspective where it is "going away", and green positions of Sun follow,
and another vertical plane left-to right directly in front of us, followed by orange Su positions under some angle relative to previous "going away" plane in perspective.
Projecting those two onto screen will bring them together, but he acts like they are together in 3D in reality.

There's more.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

So, a quick drawing to dispel this “perspective” nonsense (cos’ Tom’s dun seen another video).

I think it has been worked out that the flat earth is some 25000 miles in diameter, when drawing this I made the mistake of clicking radius instead of diameter, but I went with it, so the attached illustration has the world twice as big (and still the sun doesn’t set).

The sun is 32 units in diameter, 2500 high and the parallel lines that give the perspective are that high and half way and run out to level with the edge, but on perspective view (top right), guess what, when we put the camera out to one edge and look towards the other the lines don’t reach the horizon (on an earth twice as big).
Remembering that it's the top three lines we are looking at, the others are there for "perspective".






Now if we could just get his carers to taser him if he goes on U-tube.

[AATW]

Tom will dismiss that because it is a simulation. My challenge would be for him or some other flat earther to build a rudimentary scale model which represents the flat earth and the sun's position at what would be sunset and demonstrate that the sun would set and the shadows would be long at that sunset.
The only way for the long shadows we see at sunset to occur is if the sun is PHYSICALLY on the horizon.
You can demonstrate that with an object and a torch. Turn all the lights off, place the torch to scale roughly where the sun would be and observe the shadows.
If the sun is about 3,000 miles high and 6,000 miles away horizontally then the shadows cannot possibly be more than twice as long as the object is high.
So 1 meter high and 2 meters across would be the same - the angle would be the same so the shadow would be the same.
Either the light is bending somehow (Tom has stated it does not) or the sun is physically on the horizon.
Perspective doesn't cut it because shadow angle and length depends on the PHYSICAL relationship between light source and object, not anyone's perspective.

[StinkyOne]

As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun. I have no clue how he can think that on flat Earth, but it just goes to show that the amount of mental acrobatics one needs to perform to believe the Earth is flat. It is clear that the Sun can't be above an object and directly cast a shadow upwards, yet he persists.

[Curious Squirrel]

As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun. I have no clue how he can think that on flat Earth, but it just goes to show that the amount of mental acrobatics one needs to perform to believe the Earth is flat. It is clear that the Sun can't be above an object and directly cast a shadow upwards, yet he persists.

This is your problem with anything here. If I'm misrepresenting it I hope he corrects me, but from what I have gathered Tom essentially believes perspective to be a natural law of some form. All objects are subject to the effects of it. Which I don't honestly understand to a greater degree than it basically mimics what one would expect to see if the Earth were actually round. I'm certain there's more to it, but the word 'perspective' means something entirely different in the FE hypothesis as compared to normal everyday use.

[AATW]

As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...



I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...

[StinkyOne]

As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...



I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...

Yes, definitely correct on a round Earth. It is a satisfying bit of irony. I've tried to engage him on it a few times, but he refuses to revisit that comment.

[Tom Bishop]

As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...



I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...

That side view scene does not properly incorporate perspective. See the p-brane video that talks about those kind of scenes.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Mine does Tom, see further up.

The perspective lines are truncated at the edge of a world twice the size it should be but none of the lines he talks about dip below the horizon.

[AATW]

That side view scene does not properly incorporate perspective. See the p-brane video that talks about those kind of scenes.

Well, it does "properly" incorporate perspective in that it doesn't incorporate it at all. Because it doesn't need to. My diagram shows how silly your claim is. The person has moved their hand so it looks from their perspective as if the distant light is below the level of their hand. But in real life lamps are taller than people so the shadow is still angled downwards.

I have watched the video.
p-brane is wrong about perspective.
Rowbotham is wrong about perspective.
You are wrong about perspective.

Think about how a shadow is cast. Photons from a light source hit an object. The angle of the shadow depends on the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and the object.
Long shadows at sunset prove the sun is physically on the horizon. As I said you can prove this with an object and a torch in a dark room. Put the object on the floor and do an experiment. See if there is any other way of casting long shadows other than putting the torch near floor level. A sun 3000 miles high and 6000 miles away horizontally simply cannot do that.

To add:

The crazy claim that:

The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand. The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

From the person in my excellent diagram's perspective the lamp does look like it is above his hand.
From the person looking from the side's perspective - whose point of view I have drawn - you can see that the lamp is physically above the level of the person's hand. Of course it is. Lamp posts are taller than people.

If your claim was correct then the person with his hand up would see the shadow angled upwards, the person standing at the side would see it angled downwards because of their different perspectives. How can you possibly think that is so? The shadow is angled how it is angled for both people.

[Freash Boa]

So did this thread single handedly kill all of FET? I knew it was a flimsy theory but damn

[juner]

So did this thread single handedly kill all of FET? I knew it was a flimsy theory but damn

Please refrain from off-topic and/or low-content posting in the upper fora.

Warned.

[AATW]

Can we just get a show of hands here: how many of you agree that the fact that clouds are lit up from below totally, completely, and utterly destroys the silly FE hypothesis, and that Tom’s spooky perspective nonsense is ridiculous? Me, me, me!

Well, actually...I don't entirely agree with that.
I have explained with a diagram and proved with an experiment that for clouds to be lit from below the sun's light must be coming from below the level of the clouds so either the light is bending OR the sun is physically below the level of the clouds.
Tom dismissed my experiment because I "just moved the camera". This is true, but he is suggesting that "just moving your hand" will change the angle of the shadow from pointing downwards to upwards even if your hand is still physically below the level of the light source. I could do the experiment again by moving the object instead and so long as the object is still physically below the level of the light source you'd get the same result.
I've also suggested he do an experiment to see if he can reproduce the effect of long shadows at sunset with a light source at the angle his flat earth model claims the sun must be at during sunset.
None of this actually proves a spherical earth, but it does prove that the sun can't be where the FE model as outlined in the Wiki claims it is at sunset, unless the light is bending somehow to make it appear as if it's on the horizon. Perspective doesn't cut it.

[juner]

Hmm, how come Tom never gets in trouble for low-content posts? He completely ignores most of the arguments against your crazy theory, and then just posts the same flawed statements over and over again. I smell a conspiracy

Can we just get a show of hands here: how many of you agree that the fact that clouds are lit up from below totally, completely, and utterly destroys the silly FE hypothesis, and that Tom’s spooky perspective nonsense is ridiculous? Me, me, me!

So did this thread single handedly kill all of FET? I knew it was a flimsy theory but damn

Please refrain from off-topic and/or low-content posting in the upper fora.

Warned.

If you have a moderation issue, take it S&C. This isn't the place for it. If you think a post breaks the rules, use the report button.

Warned.

[Macarios]

As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...



I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...

That side view scene does not properly incorporate perspective. See the p-brane video that talks about those kind of scenes.

If your eyes are at 5.5 feet from the ground and that last lamp is at 20 feet from the ground, will raising your hand change their relation?
Will p-brane's version of perspective change their elevations above ground?

[JohnAdams1145]

It's hard for Tom to see why his argument is wrong if you stick to small stuff like people and lampposts. Let's do a bigger one:

Tom, imagine you're standing so you can see Mount Everest like:

Now, you can certainly raise your hand higher than the peak (just block out the sky on top of it). Now those people are many thousands of feet higher than you are. Imagine yourself at the summit of Mount Everest. Do you think they would see a hand in the sky?