[juner]

Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.

If you want to report a post that you think breaks, go ahead. An admin can review it if it is one of my posts.

However, you aren't a moderator, so refrain from attempting to moderate. Warned.

[douglips]

We see the sun rotating, we see other planets rotating. We can observe, for example, the great red spot of jupiter move across the surface, disappear, and reappear.

So this clearly means there is a face of objects in space that face us.

The moon keeps almost the same face to us at all times. An argument by symmetry means that you can't pick a face of the moon to shine at us without Euclidean geometry functioning properly.

You want a test that Euclidean geometry works over large distances, it's there. Planets have faces, we can observe them rotating, we can observe the sun rotating, so therefore not all of the surface of a sphere is visible from elsewhere.

You are the one with the weird claim that perspective functions in some way as to magically make this work for you, you don't even have a model for what that looks like and you ask us for proof?

[xenotolerance]

This is a good time to point out that Tom doesn't actually believe the bit about needing to prove that geometry works at large scales. This is a series of posts from a previous thread, also about the moon:

What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.

That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?

Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?

Clearly not!

We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.

So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved? 

You can't have it both ways, Tom.

[6or1/2Dozen]

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.

That's my point, when two people separated by any appreciable distance look at an object 3000 miles away, they really aren't going to be seeing the same side of the object. I'm not sure what you mean by the diagram  being biased, so I drafted a scale and color coded version.

[6or1/2Dozen]

I was under the impression that you agreed with FET that the Sun & Moon are 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the Earth for the reasons explained in the wiki. The wiki seems to suggest that triangles work at these distances when it states "Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth." It also appears the diameters where calculated using the angular diameter and the 'known' distance (derived from from Euclid geometry).

[This isn't stated but I can see the math and since space travel isn't possibly, actually measuring the Moon isn't an option]

Tom, are you saying that the wiki (and FET) are incorrect about the height [and diameter] of these two objects and this is yet another case of 'The distance between X and Y is unknown'.

[HorstFue]

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?

Sorry You're mixing up a mathematical model/theory with real world observations. I you want to disproof a mathematical theory, you have to go to the math "playground", disproof axioms and theorems. Euclid's  theorems have been affirmed though centuries.

What you could claim is, that this model does not match with the observation. Or in this case, that flat earth model does not follow Euclid's geometrie.
Please enlighten us, and introduce Your geometry model, which could be applied to flat earth model, or refine Your flat earth model, to match the the observation presented in this thread.

[Ratboy]

Before this thread was started, I failed to realize that the FE model should say that Southern Hemisphere people should see the dark side of the moon and the other side of the sun than Northern Hemisphere people do.  I only thought about how it all works for a guy sitting in England not having to worry about what part of the moon someone in Siberia sees at the moment he is looking at the moon.  What about someone in Chile? 
So again it comes down to a model based on where the guy lived that started it and the model would be based on a South pole if Rowbotham had lived in Tasmania instead of England.
People in India who beat a person who accidentally bumps a cow with their cart have probably never heard of rodeos.  People who think airlines circle their planes to support a round earth hoax cannot travel much. 

[Macarios]

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.

What geometry Flat Earth movement uses to measure the Earth?

[JohnAdams1145]

Euclid'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?

Sorry You're mixing up a mathematical model/theory with real world observations. I you want to disproof a mathematical theory, you have to go to the math "playground", disproof axioms and theorems. Euclid's  theorems have been affirmed though centuries.

What you could claim is, that this model does not match with the observation. Or in this case, that flat earth model does not follow Euclid's geometrie.
Please enlighten us, and introduce Your geometry model, which could be applied to flat earth model, or refine Your flat earth model, to match the the observation presented in this thread.

Tom in this case is essentially implying that we can't draw very long straight lines in arbitrary directions in the 3D space we live in. Of course, if the Earth is flat, then you can draw very long straight lines in at least a 2D subspace. So he's essentially implying that you can't draw lines straight "up." Seems legit. Of course, if you say that you can draw straight lines in arbitrary directions in space, then you have a Euclidean space and Euclidean geometry must work by standard mathematics, which is logically sound. It seems like Tom doesn't think mathematically/physically about the things he says; if you say that Euclidean geometry doesn't work at long distances, then you're saying space is curved. This is a prime example of debate in bad faith; Tom has tried to muddy the waters with something that, upon mathematical inspection, is obviously false, but he hasn't spent time to even consider the validity of what he's saying. In short, he's on a https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop.

[6or1/2Dozen]

Tom is suggesting Euclid geometry is not proven at distances of thousands of miles, but he's not suggesting an alternative, so all I can really do is guess at what he means and provide observational evidence that it actually does.

Support for Euclid geometry at a distance of 3000(ish) miles = The August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse:

If geometry and perspective work the way I understand [or at least imagine] Tom is suggesting, that some how distance observes both look up at the same surface of the Moon, the Eclipse should have been visible with 100% totality from, like, nearly the whole daylight zone of the Earth's surface. (Hint: It was not)

If geometry works the way Euclid indicates, the amount of totality should recede the further away from the path of totality that you are. (Hint: It does)

In my mind it looks something like this:



[Note: I'm not trying to strawman you here, Tom, this is what I think you are saying about geometry.
If the FE perspective lines to the Moon are wrong, please provide us a diagram that can account for
A) All observers seeing the same side of the Moon
B) The same observers not seeing 100% totality of the Solar Eclipse
C) [optionally] Falsifies Euclid geometry at 3000(ish) miles]

[Macarios]

Tom is suggesting Euclid geometry is not proven at distances of thousands of miles, but he's not suggesting an alternative, so all I can really do is guess at what he means and provide observational evidence that it actually does.

Support for Euclid geometry at a distance of 3000(ish) miles = The August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse:

If geometry and perspective work the way I understand [or at least imagine] Tom is suggesting, that some how distance observes both look up at the same surface of the Moon, the Eclipse should have been visible with 100% totality from, like, nearly the whole daylight zone of the Earth's surface. (Hint: It was not)

If geometry works the way Euclid indicates, the amount of totality should recede the further away from the path of totality that you are. (Hint: It does)

In my mind it looks something like this:



[Note: I'm not trying to strawman you here, Tom, this is what I think you are saying about geometry.
If the FE perspective lines to the Moon are wrong, please provide us a diagram that can account for
A) All observers seeing the same side of the Moon
B) The same observers not seeing 100% totality of the Solar Eclipse
C) [optionally] Falsifies Euclid geometry at 3000(ish) miles]

Does light travel in straight lines?

[6or1/2Dozen]

Does light travel in straight lines?

Yes and No.

Light travels in straight lines, except when it is refracted as it passes obliquely through the interface between one medium and another or through a medium of varying density.

We could talk about gravitational lensing, but that light is still going straight, it's the space that's curved. Being, that it's hard to see curved space (cause it's all empty and stuff), it just appears that the light is bending.

Do, I think light bends in the way indicated by the 'FE Perspective' arcs the diagram? 4311 no! That would be ignoring the observations of the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse (or any solar eclipse for that matter), which seems to (IMHO) strongly support that :

A) Light travels in a decently straight line from the Moon to Earth (generally less than 10% refraction due to the atmosphere)
and
B) Euclid's ideas about geometry and perspective are valid at a distance of thousand's of miles. (Tom's initial rejection)

If it didn't, everybody on the illuminated portion of Earth would enjoy a 100% Total Solar Eclipse every time there was a solar eclipse. They don't [unfortunately?] because perspective works [good enough at least] the way it's supposed to at that distance. (Tom's rejection refuted) Which still leaves FET in the position of needing to provide a model that can have:

A) All observers seeing the same side of the Moon
and
B) The same observers not seeing 100% totality of the Solar Eclipse

[PickYerPoison]

This is a good time to point out that Tom doesn't actually believe the bit about needing to prove that geometry works at large scales. This is a series of posts from a previous thread, also about the moon:

What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.

That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?

Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?

Clearly not!

We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.

So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved? 

You can't have it both ways, Tom.

It's very disappointing to see that Tom has not replied to this even though it was posted four days ago. I understand he is a busy man, but it becomes difficult to trust his writings when he declines to comment on his changing viewpoints.

[xenotolerance]

Let's make an appointment for the next full moon in a few weeks: mark your calendars.

Those of us who can take even a half-decent picture of the moon, please do so, and share your general location if you'd like, so we can triangulate.

This way we can get some homegrown photographic measurement added to this argument.

[Tom Bishop]

This is a good time to point out that Tom doesn't actually believe the bit about needing to prove that geometry works at large scales. This is a series of posts from a previous thread, also about the moon:

What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.

That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?

Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?

Clearly not!

We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.

So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved? 

You can't have it both ways, Tom.

Euclidean Geometry says that straight lines appear to be straight from all angles, but the people in that thread are trying to argue around that in their explanation of why the moon phase does not point at the sun. Euclidean Geometry is an axiom that is considered a truth by those proponents. They are contradicting their geometric model, and they should be questioned on that.

The axioms of Euclidean Geometry can, of course, be questioned, as I have questioned them in this thread. Euclidean Geometry isn't validated because I questioned why some people were contradicting that assumed truth in another thread.

[xenotolerance]

No.

Euclid may not be validated, but your position is invalidated. They weren't contradicting anything. You are contradicting yourself.

[Tom Bishop]

No.

Euclid may not be validated, but your position is invalidated. They weren't contradicting anything. You are contradicting yourself.

No one thought to question Euclidean Geometry in that thread when I was using their science against them, but that's not my problem.

Your beliefs are founded on the models of ancient philosophers. If those models cannot be justified then they should not be used.

[AATW]

Your beliefs are founded on the models of ancient philosophers. If those models cannot be justified then they should not be used.

And yours are founded on the ramblings of a bloke who thought the moon was translucent and has rightly been pretty much forgotten by history.

As has been explained to you many times, not all part of those ancient models have made it into the modern era. No-one now believes that everything is made up of 4 elements, for example.
Parts of the models the ancients used were shown to be bunk and have rightly superseded. Other parts of their model like Euclidean geometry have been shown to be sound so they persist.

[Curious Squirrel]

No.

Euclid may not be validated, but your position is invalidated. They weren't contradicting anything. You are contradicting yourself.

No one thought to question Euclidean Geometry in that thread when I was using their science against them, but that's not my problem.

Your beliefs are founded on the models of ancient philosophers. If those models cannot be justified then they should not be used.

Because in that thread, as I recall, you didn't understand that your eyes were deceiving you. As I recall you were told repeatedly to hold up an actual ruler (or a piece of string I think was the actual item suggested) and it would show no problems with the location of the sun to the moon. You refused. You also failed to understand the curved nature of the sky from the perspective of someone on Earth. This is just another example of you arguing from a position where you lack crucial knowledge on a subject, but talk as though you don't.

[xenotolerance]

Your beliefs are founded on the models of ancient philosophers. If those models cannot be justified then they should not be used.

This will get off topic fast, so I just started a new thread to pursue this more specifically.

My favorite definition of belief is 'acceptance that something is true.' I accept the truth of space travel, for example, so it is fair to say that I believe Yuri Gargarin and John Glenn went into orbit, and that the Curiosity rover is up on Mars. These beliefs have nothing to do with ancient philosophy. I accept the truth that the sun is 93 million miles away, and the moon 240k miles away, and the heliocentric model that causes the phases of the moon and other observations reviewed in this thread. This model certainly is justified, to say the least.

It is the flat Earth model that cannot be justified. You should abandon it, by your own standards of evidence.