[exadon]

The moon looks "upside down" to those in the southern hemisphere in comparison to those who live in the northern hemisphere. This simple fact would appear to break the current flat earth orbit model.

[6or1/2Dozen]

It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:

[Tom Bishop]

It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:

Elucid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?

[Curious Squirrel]

It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:

Elucid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?

When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.

[Tom Bishop]

When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.

It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.

[StinkyOne]

When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.

It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.

In other words, the world doesn't behave as expected if it were flat, so you have to call into question the very geometry of the universe instead of just accepting that it is a globe. (about which, there is an incredible amount of real world data) Did i get that right? Let's play out your line of reasoning - space isn't euclidean at a distance. If that were true, the sun would become more and more distorted as it moved away from us. It doesn't. Not even a little. The problem you have is that light passes through the universe. If space were distorted enough to move the sun below the horizon, it would also massively distort it's shape. (unless you're postulating that the distortion only occurs in precisely once direction)

[AATW]

It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.

It's pretty self evident that a receding body overhead won't reach much less intersect the horizon. I drew this before



And yes, yes, I know you're going to shout "but, perspective!" but think about it. How do you see something? Light from a source bounces off an object and into your eyes.
Photons bouncing from the top and bottom of the person on the right can travel in a straight line to the person on the left's eyes. So he can see the whole person.
As the person on the right gets further away all that changes is the angle at the eye which gets smaller and so the image formed on the person's retina gets smaller.
At some point the person will no longer be visible because of limitations in the person's vision. At that point some magnification would bring the person back into view, unless there was another limiting factor like atmospheric conditions.

On a plane the person will not sink below the horizon, they will be visible for as long as the person's vision allows because there is always clear line of sight between the people.
With a sun 3000 miles high (how is that triangulation experiment coming along by the way to prove that distance is correct?) and 6000 miles away the sun will clearly be above the horizon at all times. And even if you think perspective works in some way which...well in a way which it just doesn't work in, all you have to do to prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY on the horizon is observe long shadows at sunset. Those just cannot be cast by a sun which is where your model says it is. Because the angle and length of shadows cast is determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object, not perspective. I previously suggested doing an experiment in a dark room with an object and a torch. The only way of casting long shadows will be to place the torch on the ground so it is physically on the same level as the object.

[Curious Squirrel]

When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.

It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.

The 'approaching infinity' bit is irrelevant. We're dealing with known numbers that aren't anywhere near infinity. That's simply a red herring, some might even say a strawman. Let's lay this out.

The math works at any testable distance. For fun, let's say the distance is 3000 cm high, and 6000 cm away. What does the math tell me I should measure for angles? 26.565°. Does it turn out that way in reality? If I remember my math classes correctly, yes it does. Testable, provable. So why should it change if we just change things to km for distance, or meters, or miles? You're proclaiming the math that works fine at 3000 cm stops working at 3000 miles. But the math doesn't care about the units. They don't come into this at all.

This means you need to present actual evidence that your claim is true. Not this red herring of "Oh, he never proved his concept of infinity so obviously he's wrong when I need him to be!" That's not evidence. That's your stubborn belief in order to keep a FE alive.

Alternatively, light doesn't move in straight lines, or space is curved (resulting in light not moving in precisely straight lines but in a different manner). In which case you still need evidence that it does. That's how this works.
This is burden of proof. You claim something doesn't work at a certain distance, or under certain conditions, when it works fine in all testable/known ones. Fine. Claim it all you like. But no one will take your claim seriously unless you can prove it, without resorting to logical fallacies or deflection. Give us cold hard numbers and data. Images, experiments, you name it. Prove your hypothesis. Until then it's nothing but words and fantasy.

[6or1/2Dozen]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

If Elucid's ideas about geometry (and perspective) were never demonstrated to apply at large scales, why does FET use it to determine how far away the Sun is?

In context of this topic:
I am also assuming this how the distance to the moon was calculated, as a tertiary search of the wiki for this information provided no results.

[Trolltrolls]

It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:

It really doesn't seem like reversed to me. Put one person further away, and the red dot will be gone. This diagram really seems to be biased.

author=Tom Bishop link=topic=8653.msg139887#msg139887 date=1517606180]

It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:

Elucid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?

Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.

[Tom Bishop]

Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.

Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.

[JohnAdams1145]

Tom, do you even know what Euclidean geometry is? It's literally the geometry of straight lines, AKA the only geometry most people know about. Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet? You've got to be kidding me. What tests do you need? If you're saying that light doesn't travel in a straight line in space, then you're hopeless.

A test or experiment? You've got to be kidding me. Do you hear your ignorance? There are plenty of tests that show this is the case; triangles drawn out in a room, you not getting lost by walking around... Euclidean geometry assumes a space in which you can draw straight lines.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, do you even know what Euclidean geometry is? It's literally the geometry of straight lines, AKA the only geometry most people know about. Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet? You've got to be kidding me. What tests do you need? If you're saying that light doesn't travel in a straight line in space, then you're hopeless.

A test or experiment? You've got to be kidding me. Do you hear your ignorance? There are plenty of tests that show this is the case; triangles drawn out in a room, you not getting lost by walking around... Euclidean geometry assumes a space in which you can draw straight lines.

We can't just assume how much bodies will rotate infinitely into the distance, or that bodies will descend forever without intersecting with the horizon. What evidence was ever produced to corroborate those assumptions? We need evidence, not leaps of logic.

[juner]

Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?

You work with 12-foot long rulers 

[JohnAdams1145]

Tom, there is no leap of logic here. If you accept that we can draw straight lines in space (that is, the standard laws of geometry hold), then you have to accept the logical conclusions. You can't just say that math is wrong. Only the mathematical model may be wrong in that its assumptions may be flawed. But once you accept its assumptions, you cannot discredit its results. This is very simple. For example, if you say that money adds up and that I have $1 in my right hand and $1 in my left hand, you cannot just blindly assert that I don't have $2. Once you accepted I had $1 in both hands and that money is additive, you have to take the conclusions. It would be wrong (and delusional) to ask for proof that I have $2.

You're also being very vague and mathematically wrong with your terminology. What is "rotate infinitely" supposed to mean? Mathematically? What does "descend" mean? You haven't defined a coordinate system. Sloppiness with coordinate systems leads to a bunch of wrong answers.

Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?

You work with 12-foot long rulers 

Totally. I like mine 12 times longer. They're extra huge.

[AATW]

We can't just assume how much bodies will rotate infinitely into the distance, or that bodies will descend forever without intersecting with the horizon. What evidence was ever produced to corroborate those assumptions? We need evidence, not leaps of logic.

That would work way better if you had any evidence at all for most of your claims about Flat Earth.
It's quite hard to argue with someone who doesn't regard logic as admissible.
As I said, shadows are your evidence. If you can find a way to produce the long shadows you see at sunset using an object and a torch in a dark room without laying the torch on the floor then I'd like to see it.
If the sun is where you claim it is at sunset then our shadows would be no more than twice our height. But they clearly are much longer.
That proves the light source is physically low in the sky, not just appearing to be by some magic perspective law which doesn't reflect reality in any way.
Shadow angle and length does not alter because of your "perspective". A physical light source emits photons at a certain angle and hits a physical object.
That angle depends on the physical relationship between the two objects.

[Trolltrolls]

Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?

You work with 12-foot long rulers 

Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.

Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.

Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?

[Tom Bishop]

Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?

You work with 12-foot long rulers 

Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.

Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.

Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?

What claim did I make is thread? Asking for evidence of your claims is a position of skepticism. The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. You need to prove your own claims that we live in a continuous universe.

We need emperical conclusions from direct evidence, not rationalized logic. Why do you think that the universe adheres to an ancient mathematical model that was never really tested to apply to perspective?

Once it can be SHOWN that perspective operates in a continuous fashion, THEN we can expect it to be that way.

[Curious Squirrel]

Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?

You work with 12-foot long rulers 

Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.

Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.

Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?

What claim did I make is thread? Asking for evidence of your claims is a position of skepticism. The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. You need to prove your own claims that we live in a continuous universe.

We need emperical conclusions from direct evidence, not rationalized logic. Why do you think that the universe adheres to an ancient mathematical model that was never really tested to apply to perspective?

Once it can be SHOWN that perspective operates in a continuous fashion, THEN we can expect it to be that way.

Hmm, I thought I made this pretty clear up above, but you have apparently chosen to simply ignore it. Your 'continuous universe' objection is a red herring here Tom. Please stop using it.

You have yet to provide any evidence for your claim that angles at 3000 miles will be different than angles at 3000 cm. This is your claim, because it's the only way the moon can show the same face no matter where you view it from, or what time of night you view it. There's no perspective here, there's just straight lines and math. If light doesn't travel in straight lines, great. Prove it. But if it DOES travel in straight lines, show your proof for trigonometry breaking down at long distances, contrary to everything currently known. Because the math doesn't care what the unit of measure is. There's no difference in a triangle with sides of 3000 cm and 6000 cm, and a triangle of 3000 miles and 6000 miles, as far as the math is concerned. Anything you do to one will show the same with the other, because units don't affect math on the numbers.

[Trolltrolls]

Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?

You work with 12-foot long rulers 

Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.

Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.

Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?

What claim did I make is thread? Asking for evidence of your claims is a position of skepticism. The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. You need to prove your own claims that we live in a continuous universe.

We need emperical conclusions from direct evidence, not rationalized logic. Why do you think that the universe adheres to an ancient mathematical model that was never really tested to apply to perspective?

Once it can be SHOWN that perspective operates in a continuous fashion, THEN we can expect it to be that way.

You claimed Euclidean Geometry doesn't work (or is not empirically evidenced) on larger scales. You provide the proof. Because all over the world, mathematicians and physicists continue to use mathematical models. Let me say again, mathematics is universal. That's why you prove things in maths instead of verifying.