The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: mtnman on October 05, 2017, 04:17:47 PM
-
I have read the wiki article on sunsets. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun)
I have a question for Tom Bishop on this topic. Why is the vanishing point only relevant at the horizon?
From the wiki:
...since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so: (diagram omitted)
This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon...
Why wouldn't the converging perspective lines apply in all directions equally?
-
I have read the wiki article on sunsets. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun)
I have a question for Tom Bishop on this topic. Why is the vanishing point only relevant at the horizon?
From the wiki:
...since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so: (diagram omitted)
This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon...
Why wouldn't the converging perspective lines apply in all directions equally?
The problem with this perspective line is that if in fact the Earth were a globe you wouldn't get these breathe taking pictures. The lines prove flat earth once again. Enjoy the link for amazing perspective photos.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/14/article-0-1967BB4F00000578-51_964x662.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507144/photographer-Michael-Kittell-captures-Bolivian-Salt-flats.html
-
The problem with this perspective line is that if in fact the Earth were a globe you wouldn't get these breathe taking pictures. The lines prove flat earth once again. Enjoy the link for amazing perspective photos.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507144/photographer-Michael-Kittell-captures-Bolivian-Salt-flats.html
A very pretty picture that proves nothing. Again.
-
Man you must envision the lines drawn past those mtn's (get it? mtnman). Putting in cross sexting lines on the side only works if you turn sideways and look out to the vanishing points. Peripheral vision doesn't work in this instance.
-
Putting in cross sexting lines on the side only works if you turn sideways and look out to the vanishing points. Peripheral vision doesn't work in this instance.
So you say there are vanishing points to the horizon if I look sideways. Why are there no vanishing points if I look up? What's special about looking sideways?
-
I have read the wiki article on sunsets. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun)
I have a question for Tom Bishop on this topic. Why is the vanishing point only relevant at the horizon?
From the wiki:
...since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so: (diagram omitted)
This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon...
Why wouldn't the converging perspective lines apply in all directions equally?
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?
-
Ok, so the reason why you see up to a certain point on the horizon is that the earth is round. Because the earth is so big, the curve is too small to perceive with the human eye in most cases.
Your argument is that we only perceive something at a certain distance, like a game rendering scenery? That's obsurd. If that's the case then why the hell can we see stars millions of light years away and not 100km in front of us?
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?
If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?
If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.
Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.
Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?
If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.
Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.
Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?
Yes.
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?
If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.
Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.
Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?
Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?
If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.
Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.
Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?
Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?
Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.
The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?
If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.
Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.
Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?
Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?
Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.
The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.
Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.
Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.
You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.
Is that correct?
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
You've got to be kidding me. We do not see the world in a perspective form without assuming infinite distances. Your vanishing point assumes that we see parallel lines to the max extent of light reflected from our eyes. Where could this possibly be relevant? Clouds? Elaborate.
-
why the hell can we see stars millions of light years away and not 100km in front of us?
I think that's because of which stars produce the most light. Even the farther ones could still show light though closer ones are not bright enough. 100km stars could be tiny, and by proportion, the ones millions of light years away could be enormous. Depends on irrelevant factors, if anything.
-
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?
If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.
Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.
Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?
Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?
Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.
The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.
Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.
Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.
You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.
Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
-
Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
can you please draw a diagram with the correct quotes and the path of the light? You keep repeating the same stuff, that has been taken to task a hundred times.
-
Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
can you please draw a diagram with the correct quotes and the path of the light? You keep repeating the same stuff, that has been taken to task a hundred times.
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
-
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.
-
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.
That's the point. ~20° is not a precise measurement at all. Does it change? Is there not a set value? I know what he said. Even 30° was thrown around a few times. That's a 10-degree difference. It's vague regardless. Specificity is highly recommended under such circumstances.
-
That's the point. ~20° is not a precise measurement at all. Does it change? Is there not a set value? I know what he said. Even 30° was thrown around a few times. That's a 10-degree difference. It's vague regardless. Specificity is highly recommended under such circumstances.
you can calculate yourself, to the precision you deem necessary, what's the angle of incidence of light coming from an object 6000 miles away, and 3000 miles high.
The problem is that these distances are kinda thrown out there from the FE community, so there's no precision to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out.
Point is, 20° plus or minus 10° is still a long way higher in the sky than 0°...
-
That's the point. ~20° is not a precise measurement at all. Does it change? Is there not a set value? I know what he said. Even 30° was thrown around a few times. That's a 10-degree difference. It's vague regardless. Specificity is highly recommended under such circumstances.
you can calculate yourself, to the precision you deem necessary, what's the angle of incidence of light coming from an object 6000 miles away, and 3000 miles high.
The problem is that these distances are kinda thrown out there from the FE community, so there's no precision to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out.
Point is, 20° plus or minus 10° is still a long way higher in the sky than 0°...
This is of course disregarding the other problem with this idea, in that the reason one can 'hide an elephant behind a penny' and Tom put it, is because the Elephant has shrunk due to perspective. The sun however stays the exact same size.
This however is Q&A, not debate. The official answer for this FE hypothesis is that it vanishes due to the perspective effect hiding it behind the swell of the sea, or trees.
-
Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
can you please draw a diagram with the correct quotes and the path of the light? You keep repeating the same stuff, that has been taken to task a hundred times.
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
16 days ago Tom said he'd start a new thread explaining how photons travel from the sun to your eye at sunset (which would answer a *lot* of questions and concerns about FET - and SPECIFICALLY answer the question of this thread). But he STILL hasn't done that - despite reminders. It's starting to look like he doesn't have an answer...which is what you'd expect to be the case if "magic perspective" has to remain "magic" in order to support the large number of FET problems that it's supposed to explain. I started a thread on that topic myself - but Junker "vanished" it without any of his usual notifications. Sounds a lot like the FE'ers aren't keen on answering this key question about their hypothesis.
-
Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.
Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.
You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.
Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
It should follow that the most that waves/swells can obscure would be due to the largest wave between the two objects.
And that if you could move your viewpoint above the height of the waves/swells, the sun should be visible again.
The highest wave ever recorded is around 100 feet.
Therefore, if only waves/swells block our view of the sun, we should always be able to view the sun over the ocean from a tall building or a plane.
-
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.
Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
-
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.
Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
What you're saying is only true in FET...and indeed, we RE'ers are saying that the horizon cannot exist in a flat earth. So you are "assuming the consequent".
HOWEVER: The photons that make up the light from the elephant travel in a straight line towards your eye and hit the dime instead. This happens because there is a straight line between elephant, dime and eye. Hence you cannot see the elephant.
But the sun, the horizon and your eye DON'T lie in a straight line...so sunrises and sunsets don't work in FET.
This is PRECISELY why I keep asking you to fulfil your offer to explain how the photons are travelling. Nothing else makes for a clear explanation of what you THINK is going on here. The fact that you have been ducking this explanation for over a month now (and 16 days after saying that you WOULD answer it) suggests that you don't have an answer.
Here is a helpful diagram.
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Sunrise.png)
Photons travelling in a straight line would take the blue path and miss the tree that's on the horizon.
Photons that WOULD hit the tree would have to take the pink path - but then they aren't travelling in a straight line but cleverly steering themselves to make it look like the sun is behind the tree. Sadly, this isn't what happens because (we all know) light travels in a straight line.
-
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all.
Ah, but we can see the horizon in a round object, can't we? If you stand on a sphere, no matter its size (within reasonable bounds), there will always be the solid material representative of the sphere when you look down and no material representative of the sphere when you look up. There must be a transition when you look from the solid material to no solid material. The transition is a thin line— a one-dimensional line of no thickness (by definition)— between the ground and the sky. That is what we call a horizon. Look at this picture and tell me there is no transition line:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSiP5_hnqckubElza8eKZ5H6jRz95Aj-EmjFZgVGKRWAHYrnuWJ
The sun is zero degrees from the horizon's offset. If, in a flat Earth, the sun could possibly appear as depicted in the picture, the entire world would be experiencing sunset. But that isn't the case, is it?
It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.
Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
How does this perspective-drawing view of the world support the flat Earth theory? Sure, we perceive parallel lines as convergent if extended for long distances, but this seems like an irrelevant point.
It is not perspective that places the horizon at eye-level, but the transition line that must always exist between the ground and sky. Actually, in the flat Earth, the horizon should exist at the same place on Earth every time. No building can obstruct your view enough if your altitude is at 100 kilometers. Look at the horizon, approach it (with a plane, of course). If you see new land beyond the first perceived horizon, then the Earth can't possibly be flat, right? If new land is seen, there had to have been curvature that hid the rest of the land beyond this horizon. I can assure you that you will never reach the horizon. It is not a place. It would always exist at a different point, depending on where you are. You told me yourself that the horizon could never be reached. Why do you insist that there is no curvature in the Earth, that it is flat?
-
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.
Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
oh god not again. This is meaningless. You are basically refusing to accept basic geometry because you cannot shoehorn it in your preconceived view. This is demented, I'm sorry.
How do photons travel from the sun to your eyes? What path do they take from a sun which is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high? Draw that path on a diagram.
-
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.
Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
As always, you use a terrible example in your 'proof' for the horizon. Your claim requires the basic mathematics to fail beyond a certain distance for reasons you have never explained, nor shown to exist in reality. Let's take your train tracks example, shall we?
The US standard for gauge is 4 feet, 8 inches. Let's place our observer precisely in the middle of the tracks, so there's 2 feet, 4 inches to either side of him. The tracks form a perpendicular to his location so we've got 90 degrees. Let's make the math a touch easier and say he's got 1 meter to either side of him. (I'll happily come back to 2 ft, 4 in if you insist, but the distances won't be too measurably different.) So we've got the first two points we need to check this triangle. The last will be distance of the rails. I'll grab some numbers and let's see what we get back for angles.
10 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 11 degrees. Sure, I can still see that clear separation.
25 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 4.5 degrees. Well by all accounts we can still see that separation can't we?
50 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 2 degrees. At roughly half a football field away, we're still seeing them apart from one another. Sounds right.
100 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 1 degree. A full football field away we can still tell the difference? I think our tracks are getting a touch small, but I think so. The boards likely help some.
200 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.5 degrees. Two football fields away. The tracks are still separated. Can we tell though? Well, the human eye is said to start failing at about an angular size of 0.02 degrees. So assuming the tracks are nice bright colors, we're still seeing it. (Bright colors simply to help distinguish the tracks from the brown around them as otherwise we've potentially lost track of them and are judging based on the wood.)
500 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.2 degrees. Still discernible.
1000 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.1 degrees. Alright, still there. How about we kick this up a bit.
1600 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.07 degrees. This is about 1 mile, visible in a number of places, and still seeing the difference.
5700 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.02 degrees. This is about 3.5 miles distant. Right about the horizon line for our viewer. We see these rails just about coming together at about that location normally don't we?
Seems the 'ancient Greek math' matches the reality pretty well so long as one takes into account the known angles the eye can tell things apart. Should we see how far away your sun has to be to get anywhere near that for the ocean? Largest wave ever recorded was 100 ft high. Let's say that's a nice 30 m high. The horizon is 5700 meters away, how about we put the wave right there.
5700 meters away, 30 meters high, 90 degree angle on the wave gives us an angle of; 0.3 degrees to the top of the wave. We're still seeing it by a pretty good margin. But wait, where's the sun supposed to be again?
9.656.000 meters away, 4.828.000 meters high, 90 degree angle to directly beneath it gives us an angle of; 26.56 degrees up to the sun. Hmm, I'm spotting a problem here. There's no way that wave is blocking our view of the sun. Well alright, how can we get our wave to block the sun? How far away does it have to be?
4.828.000 meters high, 90 degree angle right below it, 0.3 degree angle to it, gives us a distance of; 922.071.651 meters. AKA 572.948.761 miles away. Just over half a billion miles. That would be a pretty large Earth wouldn't it?
For the record, the Earth is said to dip 2.55 meters over the 5700 meters to the horizon. This gives us an angle of 0.026 degrees. Just about the angle we can detect. Imagine that. Sure explains why the horizon 'rises to eye level' too doesn't it?
So Tom, how about telling us just what the path the light takes to get to ones eye so that it's blocked by our wave? Because it can't be coming straight from the sun in order to get there, or it wouldn't vanish behind the ocean waves at all. Alternatively show exactly how the math is wrong, and perhaps we can have a discussion. ;)
EDIT: God damnit, Q&A again with this question. Perhaps this should just get moved over to debate? I feel the FE answer to his question has been suitably given, but this sort of thread isn't going to stay Q&A very long right now methinks.
-
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.
Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
What you're saying is only true in FET...and indeed, we RE'ers are saying that the horizon cannot exist in a flat earth. So you are "assuming the consequent".
HOWEVER: The photons that make up the light from the elephant travel in a straight line towards your eye and hit the dime instead. This happens because there is a straight line between elephant, dime and eye. Hence you cannot see the elephant.
But the sun, the horizon and your eye DON'T lie in a straight line...so sunrises and sunsets don't work in FET.
This is PRECISELY why I keep asking you to fulfil your offer to explain how the photons are travelling. Nothing else makes for a clear explanation of what you THINK is going on here. The fact that you have been ducking this explanation for over a month now (and 16 days after saying that you WOULD answer it) suggests that you don't have an answer.
Here is a helpful diagram.
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Sunrise.png)
Photons travelling in a straight line would take the blue path and miss the tree that's on the horizon.
Photons that WOULD hit the tree would have to take the pink path - but then they aren't travelling in a straight line but cleverly steering themselves to make it look like the sun is behind the tree. Sadly, this isn't what happens because (we all know) light travels in a straight line.
The physics in your scene are entirely wrong. You are using a model in which it is impossible for a horizon to exist. It is impossible for railroad tracks to touch a horizon in that model. Railroad tracks touch the horizon at a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.
(https://i.imgur.com/WDmYgHT.png)
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality. Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.
Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.
-
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though
Or try this:
'The model you have provided is untested over long distances and makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven.'
Please provide photographs and a demonstration that 'land ascends to the horizon' from real life and not from sideways diagrams that do not resemble real observational Zetetic experience with a full itemized inventory of all equipment used, the air temperature and pressure that day, unbroken video from multiple angles of the demonstration that include the sun and horizon in the frame at all times, as well as forum verification with the date, a photo ID, and your forum handle in the frame all at one time.
when do you that you'll still be wrong, but at least you'll be consistent
And lordie this is rich:
Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of perspective which have never been observed.
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed.
-
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though
How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed
3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.
-
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?
-
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?
For this query see the wiki article on that topic (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset).
-
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?
For this query see the wiki article on that topic (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset).
Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.
-
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though
How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed
3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.
I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't) but the limits of human perception DO. You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.
You claim the Earth is flat right now, and thus the sun has to be able to reach the horizon because we see it happen every day. You dismiss any model we offer up because of the second reality. But if the math doesn't work for the first to be true, but we know the second we know has to be, where do you suppose the error is? Could it be with our very first assumption?
IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat. So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance. That means you need to show how/where using examples independent of a round or flat Earth. Do you have such things? Because none have been presented so far.
-
The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.
(https://i.imgur.com/WDmYgHT.png)
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?
EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!
EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high ;D
-
Vanishing points only exist for truly parallel lines that seem to converge.
Otherwise, vanishing points only exist for an object becoming increasingly smaller.
Tom, are you sure you're using either of these definitions of a vanishing point the way you should be? Or is Google, the infamous mainstream search engine, wrong?
The line of sight and the ground have to at least seem to converge to reach a horizon, so that your precious vanishing point (which is really a line, the horizon, not the sun) appears before the human eye.
The sun can't count as the vanishing point. We see the sun. It hasn't disappeared as it has set. Plus, the ground and our line of sight have to be truly, but not seemingly, parallel for your definition to be correct. Well, there exists a perspective view but no vanishing point to compare. Think about it, Tom.
The sun, on the other note, is not getting noticeably farther either. So I'm sure that this definition of a vanishing point (object) is being used...
-
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though
How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed
3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.
Lands do not, have not ever, and never will "get up to the horizon." They do not "ascend to it," with or without perspective effects. Your diagrams are incorrect - if the sightline is straight out, the horizon will never intersect with it, even on an infinite plane. If you look at the horizon, you are looking slightly down. In other words, your question is bunk.
And your logic is backwards! Sure, he has to design his model of Earth to fit what is actually observed - but when this is done, you end up with a globe. Any flat Earth model is going to have fatal problems because the Earth is not flat. So if you want to design a flat Earth model that fits with reality, I hope you're prepared to move on from your premise.
And, by the way, there exists easily accessible proof that the Earth is a sphere. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7009.msg127450#msg127450) If you want to say otherwise, you have to prove that space travel is fake - not the other way around, where you presume the Earth is flat therefore space travel must be faked.
so yeah, all of this junk about perspective is missing the point anyway. get busy proving your conspiracy theory, or get busy shutting the fuck up
-
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?
For this query see the wiki article on that topic (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset).
Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.
The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmosphere. A welder's mask would make as much difference as wearing sunglasses in a movie theater to block out the movie.
I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't)
Your math is just that -- math. Where in reality is there an example of perspective lines never touching each other for infinity?
You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.
Your model must reflect things which occur in reality, not the mind of an ancient person who believed that perspective lines would approach each other for infinity. Where is the evidence that would happen?
IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat.
No. You need to show that the math is based on SOMETHING in reality. You must demonstrate reason for us to believe that the nature of perspective lines act in the ways you describe.
"Prove me wrong" is a terrible debating strategy. You are claiming that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity, and that is your claim to demonstrate in some way.
So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance.
That geometry for perspective lines and long distances has never been demonstrated to be based on anything in reality. It is your duty to provide evidence for it.
If no evidence can be provided, why should we assume it to be true?
-
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?
EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!
EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high ;D
Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.
-
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?
EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!
EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high ;D
Enough about perspective! Interpret it!
Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.
-
I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't)
Your math is just that -- math. Where in reality is there an example of perspective lines never touching each other for infinity?
Which is why the angular limit of the human eye comes into importance, as I showed you.
You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.
Your model must reflect things which occur in reality, not the mind of an ancient person who believed that perspective lines would approach each other for infinity. Where is the evidence that would happen?
Because two parallel lines will never touch. Not perspective lines, actual parallel lines. The angular limit of the human eye is what creates the perspective effect and I accounted for that and it matched reality.
IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat.
No. You need to show that the math is based on SOMETHING in reality. You must demonstrate reason for us to believe that the nature of perspective lines act in the ways you describe.
"Prove me wrong" is a terrible debating strategy. You are claiming that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity, and that is your claim to demonstrate in some way.
No, I'm claiming that two *parallel lines* will never meet. Which is correct. Perspective lines meet at the point their angular distance becomes too small. 0.02 degrees. Which I showed matches up very nicely with where the horizon is, giving the appearance of railroad tracks meeting just over it or at it.
So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance.
That geometry for perspective lines and long distances has never been demonstrated to be based on anything in reality. It is your duty to provide evidence for it.
If no evidence can be provided, why should we assume it to be true?
Irrelevant. They work at all easily measurable distances. That means it's on YOU to show they stop working at some distance, and how and why they do. Not just claim "Oh well you've never measured at this distance, so I can claim whatever I want about it here." No. That's not how it works. It works correctly for all testable distances. This means it's on the claimant (you) to show it works as they claim it does, and NOT as it's shown to work in the real world. Do I need to link Engineering projects and math homework that relies on this to prove this point? Or can you just accept the rules for triangles work at all real world testable distances? I'd be happy to see what I can dig up if you're going to be petulant on this point, but will you actually admit you can't accept a staple of geometry as fact just to get me to do it? *grabs popcorn*
You need to show that a diagram such as the one 3D has provided for the sun, breaks down at long distance in such a way that what should be an angle of 25 degrees, becomes one of 0.02 or less (I'll give you a break here, show me an angle of less than 5 degrees). The angular limit of the eye accounts for perspective, as I just showed you. Thus the math accounts for perspective, as I just showed you. Now either show us what's wrong with the math, or show us how you know it breaks down at some distance, and how. Or admit sunsets can't happen on a flat Earth of this rough size.
-
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?
EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!
EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high ;D
Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.
this is a meaningless sentence. Does the earth literally raises? Is the sun torching it at sunset?
In your model the sun is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high. The photons cannot be emitted at ground level. There is nothing there to do it. They have to cover the vertical distance somehow.
The cases are two: either the earth literally raises, and the sun is leaving smouldering craters around the world at sunset
Or, the light bends somewhere, getting down in altitude before realigning parallel to the ground.
There is no way around it. Which is it?
Also, in your diagrams you have a paradoxical situation in which you can't conserve the orientation of the line of sight with respect to the ground. The direction is radically different. You have to address this too.
EDIT: I've read this now:
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
So, let's go through this. Assuming a flat earth with no obstacles... a sunset in the desert.
I point a laser beam at eye level, 6' , parallel to the ground. What happens?
Basic geometry suggests that after a mile, it will still be at 6' height. The same after 100 miles. After 6000 miles, if the earth is flat and the light goes straight, it will pass at 6' height, below a sun which is 3000 miles high.
You are saying that, instead, it's going to hit the sun.
How?! Walk me through the path of that laser. Tell me how to cross that 3000 miles divide without bending the light or without incinerating the earth ;D
-
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?
For this query see the wiki article on that topic (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset).
Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.
The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmosphere. A welder's mask would make as much difference as wearing sunglasses in a movie theater to block out the movie.
Can you expound on this further?
Wouldn't the sun also appear to be getting brighter as in the example photo on the wiki, the headlights on the horizon are distorted coming through a fog, appearing not only "larger" but brighter than their counterparts in the foreground.
From the wiki:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/a/a7/Headlight_example.jpg)
-
Woah - busy 24 hours since I was last here!
OK - so I'm going to concentrate on replying to Tom's multiple posts:
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective.
We'll move on to perspective once we know how the photons get from the sun, past the tree on the horizon and into the person's eye while still (somehow) travelling in a straight line...as you claim they do.
This isn't about perspective AT ALL. This is about what it would be like to follow the path of a little bundle of light from the surface of the sun, past the tree on the horizon and into the guy's eyeball.
Answer THIS question...that's the one that separates the men from the boys here.
If that's too hard, imagine a long rope tied to the sun at one end and to the man's head at the other and pulled tight so it's a straight line. How would this touch the tree on the horizon?
Once you can follow the path of the photons, your "perspective" explanation will either become crystal clear to everyone here - or it'll become equally clear to you that you're not able to explain sunsets and sunrises adequately.
But you're continual "mumble, mumble PERSPECTIVE mumble mumble" postings are not making your position clear.
Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all.
To be 100% accurate: "Under the model I am referencing, the horizon could not exist at all IN A FLAT EARTH"...which is correct - I believe that if the earth was flat, then there would be no horizon, just a distant blur due to atmospheric effects. But the horizon clearly is there, and often as a crisp, hard line - which is because light travels in a straight line and the Earth is curved.
So - you're essentially saying "3DGeek must be wrong because in the flat earth system there would be no horizon - hence he must be wrong and the earth is flat"...but that's a logic flaw. You're assuming the answer in order to prove the answer. In formal logic, you're making the error of petitio principii...or in common English "begging the question".
It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.
No - it's only wrong if the earth is flat...which it's not...again, you're using petitio principii. You're saying that IF THE EARTH IS FLAT...then 3Dgeek cannot prove that the earth is not flat. Which doesn't mean that I can't prove that the earth isn't flat.
Perspective places the horizon line at eye level.
I deny this claim. It does not. You're a confirmed Zetetic - you can only have come to this conclusion as a result of experimental evidence. Where is this evidence?
Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
That seems undeniable...IF there is a horizon. But in FET, the horizon doesn't exist - it's just atmospheric attenuation. Your very own Wiki says so:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Viewing_Distance (https://wiki.tfes.org/Viewing_Distance) says...
It has been noted that although the earth is flat, distant continents thousands of miles away remain unseen. This is due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. There is a limit to human sight before all lands are faded and obscured by the thickness of the atmosphere.
Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.
So you're getting confused about your own information here!
OK - so in Tom's second recent post we see:
The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.
(https://i.imgur.com/WDmYgHT.png)
So in the top image, a GIGANTIC man looks past a tiny tree and the land slopes uphill to a point where it literally touches the sun. I'm not sure what this is supposed to convey. If the sun was touching the ground in Morocco when it's sunrise in Texas (see my diagram) then it would leave gigantic scorchmarks in the ground...it doesn't...so the sun isn't LITERALLY on the ground - it's only SUBJECTIVELY so.
We need to understand the LITERAL path of the photons - and as my diagram clearly shows, if they travel in a straight line - then there is no sunset.
Your second diagram conveniently proves this. You have placed the sun way too low though...it's altitude at sunset/rise should be about half of the distance to it...so let me fix that for you:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/TomsDiagram2.png)
But there is a more fundamental problem here - the angles don't add up. A tree that's (say) 20 meters tall and 20 km away on the horizon would not subtend the same angle at the person's eye as the sun at 3000 miles up and 6000 miles away. That's a massive angular difference.
The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality.
The principle of similar triangles says that I can halve all of the distances and the angles and ratios stay the same. I can divide them by 10,000 and the same applies. So if light travels in straight lines - the rules will be the same at all distances.
Your claim that my model is contradictory to reality is 100% correct - and that is the ENTIRE point of it. That's because my diagram assumes that the world is flat. If I draw you a diagram with the earth correctly curved - then everything works out perfectly. (HINT: THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT!)
Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.
The concept of a "continuous universe" seems irrelevant here - that's the Greek idea from around 330BC that there are no such things as atoms...they bounced around a bit on that one. But it seems to have no bearing whatever on this debate. Maybe you're thinking of some other concept?
Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.
Indeed, the distance to the horizon is finite - but that's because the Earth is round. As is said in the Wiki - the flat earth horizon is claimed to be there because the air isn't clear enough to see further.
Train tracks don't meet at the horizon - they only look that way because human vision isn't good enough to resolve the gap. Grab a pair of binoculars and you can see a separation quite easily. Don't guess...do the experiment!
The PURPOSE of my diagram is to show that YOUR flat earth theory (not mine!) doesn't match with reality. That's what we're arguing about here. Again, you're being guilty of petitio principii - you're saying "The world is flat, 3Dgeek's diagram doesn't match that the world is flat, therefore the diagram is incorrect."...but you're ASSUMING that the world is flat and using that to argue that the diagram cannot be right because it proves the world isn't flat!!
-
3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.
I still don't know what you're talking about "continuous universe theory" for - that's the theory that there are no atoms...it has no bearing on this.
My diagram uses no math whatever - it's just a diagram.
However, I've shown previously that your ideas of perspective are incorrect using the pinhole camera approach - and then I did use some ancient greek math...the law of "Similar Triangles".
Just because math is old doesn't mean that it's wrong. The law of similar triangles is one of Euclid's theorems and it's ever bit as valid today as it was when Euclid wrote it down.
Euclid also wrote a book on perspective - which you should probably read.
He starts with eight axioms - which are things that we can all agree upon...EXCEPT ONE!! Euclid believed (as did many people) that light rays emanated from the eye rather than from the object you're looking at! Fortunately, this assumption doesn't affect any of his conclusions - which are logically determined with step-by-step rigor. If you reverse the direction of the light rays in all of his work - it doesn't change the outcome.
Euclid has NEVER been disproven - even after 2,350 years.
So if you're saying he's wrong - then you REALLY need to look at his work first - so you at least know what you're disproving.
Simply saying "It doesn't match reality" isn't a valid logical argument because it DOES match reality if the Earth is round. So (again) you can't say "Euclidean Perspective doesn't match the flat earth therefore euclidean perspective is incorrect and therefore the earth is flat"...you're assuming the consequent...begging the question.
-
3DGeek, you brought up:
I deny this claim. It does not. You're a confirmed Zetetic - you can only have come to this conclusion as a result of experimental evidence. Where is this evidence?
Seemed only fitting to inform you it's been covered by Rowbotham, you've likely just forgotten. I can't place where it is right now, but he essentially stated: "The devices used to sight long distance angles show a dip below the horizontal when looked through at the horizon. Upon removing the glass from them though, the horizon was once again right at the level of the eye. Thus, the way the glass is used is defective." Or something to that effect. Basically claiming that his eyes are a better instrument for measuring it, than the instrument we created to help us measure it. I'm certain Tom will bring it up though, as it fits the idea of evidence for 'horizon rises to eye level' as well as a similar story I recall in ENaG about him going on a balloon ride. Sorry I can't find the pages right now, recall it being somewhat early on in ENaG though.
-
Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.
Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?
Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?
Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.
The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.
Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.
Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.
You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.
Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
I would like to get back to Tom's statement about vanishing points existing because things (waves, swells, trees, etc.) block the view.
If this is the case, then there should be a definable height above which there are no obstacles. This also implies that on a flat Earth the sun should always be visible given proper height. For example, from an airplane or the world's tallest building.
-
Any reply to my previous question from the FE faithful?
-
Adding on: that height at which you can always see the sun should not be much higher than, say, sea level.
This is one more failed prediction of a flat Earth model - the Earth is not flat!
-
Agreed. With Tom's explanation of the vanishing point being caused by things blocking the view, would only make sense that a few thousand feet up, the sun should be visible 24 hours a day. If the Earth was flat.
-
So we are into November now and still no FE comment on Tom's statement about vanishing points existing because things (waves, swells, trees, etc.) block the view. Most disappointing.