[hexagon]

Who cares for the ancient Greeks? Perspective is a consequence of visual perception. Therefor, go to Amazon and buy a good book about optics. For a start, take this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Optics-Electromagnetic-Propagation-Interference/dp/0521642221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527151310&sr=8-1&keywords=born+wolf+optics

[SiDawg]

Again, i think of the jumping frog example... A frog is trying to cross a river. It can jump half the distance each time. i.e. in it's first jump, it crosses half the river. In it's second jump, it crosses half the remaining distance to the bank.

Obviously the frog will never actually reach the bank, but you can still draw the path he will take... it just looks like a line from one bank to the other yes?

This is what a perspective line is! As objects get "smaller" in the distance, they also get closer to the vanishing point by a smaller amount... i.e. a train track: the gap between the near sleepers looks quite large to you, but as the track goes in to the distance, the gap between the sleepers gets less and less yes?

Objects disappearing in to the distance are just like the frog: they get closer and closer to the "vanshing point", the other side of the river, but they never reach it, because each time they 'jump', it's a fraction of the remaining distance...

So yes, "kind of", perspective lines meet, but you have to surely realise that they meet at an infinite distance: this is very simple geometry.

[SpaceCadet]

Common people. You are falling for a classic Tom Bishop play. Muddy the waters and divert attention away from the post flat earth tinking can't handle. This thread isn't about perspective.

I think there are enough people on this forum to measure the angles and direction of the sun from different cities. All observations can be posted in a thread created for that purpose. A rough estimation of distances can be taken to see if it matches what we have been "told".

If nothing else, it would show the inability of the flat earth community to produce a map is due to their unwillingness to be proved wrong by their own observations.

[edby]

Common people. You are falling for a classic Tom Bishop play. Muddy the waters and divert attention away from the post flat earth tinking can't handle. This thread isn't about perspective.

I think there are enough people on this forum to measure the angles and direction of the sun from different cities. All observations can be posted in a thread created for that purpose. A rough estimation of distances can be taken to see if it matches what we have been "told".

If nothing else, it would show the inability of the flat earth community to produce a map is due to their unwillingness to be proved wrong by their own observations.

You are so right. Correct. It is all about the accurate measurement of distance between a set of points, and how to project them onto a flat surface.

[Max_Almond]

I think there are enough people on this forum to measure the angles and direction of the sun from different cities. All observations can be posted in a thread created for that purpose. A rough estimation of distances can be taken to see if it matches what we have been "told".

This has been done. YouTuber Sly Sparkane posted a video in which 23 participants in 9 separate countries measured the sun's elevation angle at solar noon on the September equinox.

When the results are viewed and compared with the two models of the earth, it should be obvious which one is accurate.

Here is the result for the flat earth:



Which, as expected, demonstrates a complete lack of cohesion for the model.

Meanwhile, for the globe:



Showing that the angles measured by the participants correspond with both a distant sun, and the earth being a spheroid with a mean radius of around 3959 miles.

Given that this experiment is repeatable by anyone, requiring no great technical knowledge or equipment, it would seem difficult to dispute.

The full video is here (set to start with the results from 7:04 - the rest before that is preamble, explaining the experiment, introducing the participants, etc).

[TomInAustin]

I think there are enough people on this forum to measure the angles and direction of the sun from different cities. All observations can be posted in a thread created for that purpose. A rough estimation of distances can be taken to see if it matches what we have been "told".

This has been done. YouTuber Sly Sparkane posted a video in which 23 participants in 9 separate countries measured the sun's elevation angle at solar noon on the September equinox.

When the results are viewed and compared with the two models of the earth, it should be obvious which one is accurate.

Here is the result for the flat earth:



Which, as expected, demonstrates a complete lack of cohesion for the model.

Meanwhile, for the globe:



Showing that the angles measured by the participants correspond with both a distant sun, and the earth being a spheroid with a mean radius of around 3959 miles.

Given that this experiment is repeatable by anyone, requiring no great technical knowledge or equipment, it would seem difficult to dispute.

The full video is here (set to start with the results from 7:04 - the rest before that is preamble, explaining the experiment, introducing the participants, etc).

Is that round earth based YouTube?  Please provide evidence from a flat earth based youtube.



Yes, it was a joke but this post should be pinned.  Hard evidence that does not rely on miles, lat long, GPS, speeds, NASA,  etc.    Siple science that can be observed. 

Checkmate.

[Tom Bishop]

I took a look at the MetaBunk thread on this and the end of it looks like they are just hypothesizing on bending light models for a Flat Earth where light curves upwards. We do have models which involve bending light. It looks like MetaBunk is just doing our work for us?

There are also a lot of assumptions about the longitude lines being evenly spaced in the Flat Earth model, and how perspective works.

I also don't particularly trust such evidence from a guy who seems to dedicate his life to trying to debunk FET with videos. Thork has shown that some of them willingly use deception. How about data from contemporary sources, rather than from users with screen names such as Spheroid Master and Flat_Earth_Math (names from that video)?

[Tumeni]

I also don't particularly trust such evidence from a guy who seems to dedicate his life to trying to debunk FET with videos. Thork has shown that some of them willingly use deception.

Even if, by some small chance, some of them do, then surely you're now obliged to prove that the video author above has also done this? 

You're effectively saying that I'm a murderer because some humans are alleged to be murderers.

[Max_Almond]

Totally agree. This has nothing to do with people's names or what some people hypothesise about the flat earth model or whether some round earthers are dishonest sometimes: that's just a diversionary tactic.

The point is this:

1. You and your friends can measure the angle to the sun
2. Knowing how far you are from one another, you can then plot those angles to find out where the sun is
3. You can try it for any shape earth you like, and see what works
4. What works is a sphere; what doesn't work is a plane

There are three ways to dispute this:

1. You can say the angles are wrong - but you're going to have a hard time proving that, being as they are easily verified
2. You can say the distances are wrong - ditto on that: millions of people taking millions of journeys every day would have noticed
3. You can say that geometry doesn't work - I'd like to think nobody's this far gone

Other than that, it's really about coming to terms with what's staring you in the face.

[Tom Bishop]

We already have that upwards bending light theory that Metabunk is talking about. A supporter of that theory could simply assert that this just supports that idea that light bends upwards.

Otherwise:

- There are too many assumptions. The longitude line being evenly spaced? Who proved that?

- The accuracy of the users

- The honesty of the users (considering that they have names like Spheroid Master and Flat_Earth_Math and the video creator seems to devote much of his time debunking FE videos). A contemporary source for the data would be much better.

- Many of the lines do seem to intersect at spots, suggesting a rough area for a Flat Earth Sun.

- An assumption on how perspective works at large distances.

- The claim that the NOAA calculators are accurate and can support them on this matter. It has been demonstrated that they are not accurate.

[Max_Almond]

1, They've been carefully measured and verified. Have you any evidence that says they are not evenly spaced?

2. The angles measured by the users matches very closely to that provided at places like timeanddate.com, suncalc.org, etc. Nobody has ever shown these angles to be in error. Have you any evidence that says otherwise? Why not test it yourself, from your own house, right now?

3. See above.

4. How many flat earth suns? This is just from 23 measurements:



And the suns in that diagram would be over 300 miles in diameter, to cover multiple points.

5. How does perspective work over large distances? (E.g., looking at the sun.)

6. Evidence for NOAA inaccuracy?

[MCToon]

- The honesty of the users (considering that they have names like Spheroid Master and Flat_Earth_Math and the video creator seems to devote much of his time debunking FE videos). A contemporary source for the data would be much better.

Tom, this is highly hypocritical.  You posted a video from "Globebusters" in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9462.msg147849#msg147849

By your own logic, Globebuster videos must also be untrustworthy.

Be consistent.

[Tontogary]

We already have that upwards bending light theory that Metabunk is talking about. A supporter of that theory could simply assert that this just supports that idea that light bends upwards.

Otherwise:

- There are too many assumptions. The longitude lines being evenly spaced? Who proved that?

Ummmmm? Tom you really need to understand your subject before making statements like the one above, it just makes you look silly, and making up stuff just to try to derail threads.

Meridians of longitude evenly spaced??? Really? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there are 360 degrees in a circle. The meridians of longitude are just named after degrees. Do you have a protractor where the graduations are not evenly spaced? Please provide a picture.

Also IT DOES NO MATTER about longitude, as if the observation is taken when the LHA of the sun is 360, (0) then it is at noon, and the elevation will depend on latitude, and declination.

I thought we went through this on another thread, but wait, oh yes you ran away from that one, so it obviously shows you dont really have a grasp of the subject.

[Tom Bishop]

Ummmmm? Tom you really need to understand your subject before making statements like the one above, it just makes you look silly, and making up stuff just to try to derail threads.

Meridians of longitude evenly spaced??? Really? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there are 360 degrees in a circle. The meridians of longitude are just named after degrees. Do you have a protractor where the graduations are not evenly spaced? Please provide a picture.

Also IT DOES NO MATTER about longitude, as if the observation is taken when the LHA of the sun is 360, (0) then it is at noon, and the elevation will depend on latitude, and declination.

I thought we went through this on another thread, but wait, oh yes you ran away from that one, so it obviously shows you dont really have a grasp of the subject.

Latitude and Longitude are concepts that originate with Astronomy and which assumes that we live on a spherical surface.

The North Star is assumed to descend evenly from the North Pole to the Equator, as if the earth were a globe, and will tell you your Latitude. But what if it doesn't descend evenly from one Latitude to the next? Then that means we have it wrong. Who tested that?

Who tested that the latitude and longitude lines are evenly spaced? Per Longitude we are assuming that the sun is traveling in a circle in the Flat Earth model when it could very well be traveling in an oval.

A lot of assumptions are made when we start analyzing Latitude and Longitude and what they mean. We already know that airplanes just calculate their distances traveled based on Lat and Lon, rather than a direct measurement of the earth's surface. There is no such thing as a speedometer for an airplane.

Things may be somewhat off, and one may attribute discrepancies and imprecision to wind conditions, the use or non-use of jet streams, engine performance, or without any attention at all.

[Max_Almond]

"Who tested all that?" is a googleable question.

Just because you don't understand something, or don't have knowledge of a subject, it doesn't mean the whole thing is "assumed".

[SiDawg]

We do have models which involve bending light
[...]
There are also a lot of assumptions about [...] how perspective works.

On a scale from 1 to 10 how would rate the "assumption" level of a) perspective as a result of angles towards a focus point and b) perspective because electromagnetic waves are curved?

Scale 1 = completely unquestionable fact, 5 = some evidence but still some questions, 10 = pure speculation without any evidence

[MCToon]

We do have models which involve bending light
[...]
There are also a lot of assumptions about [...] how perspective works.

On a scale from 1 to 10 how would rate the "assumption" level of a) perspective as a result of angles towards a focus point and b) perspective because electromagnetic waves are curved?

Scale 1 = completely unquestionable fact, 5 = some evidence but still some questions, 10 = pure speculation without any evidence

Excellent thoughts.

assumptions about perspective as a result of angles towards a focus point = 2
perspective because electromagnetic waves are curved = 10

There is no evidence of curved light I have ever seen.  Refraction, reflection, gravity; yes, yes, yes.  Universal mono-directional selective bending; no.

[Tontogary]

Ummmmm? Tom you really need to understand your subject before making statements like the one above, it just makes you look silly, and making up stuff just to try to derail threads.

Meridians of longitude evenly spaced??? Really? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there are 360 degrees in a circle. The meridians of longitude are just named after degrees. Do you have a protractor where the graduations are not evenly spaced? Please provide a picture.

Also IT DOES NO MATTER about longitude, as if the observation is taken when the LHA of the sun is 360, (0) then it is at noon, and the elevation will depend on latitude, and declination.

I thought we went through this on another thread, but wait, oh yes you ran away from that one, so it obviously shows you dont really have a grasp of the subject.

Latitude and Longitude are concepts that originate with Astronomy and which assumes that we live on a spherical surface.

The North Star is assumed to descend evenly from the North Pole to the Equator, as if the earth were a globe, and will tell you your Latitude. But what if it doesn't descend evenly from one Latitude to the next? Then that means we have it wrong. Who tested that?

Who tested that the latitude and longitude lines are evenly spaced? Per Longitude we are assuming that the sun is traveling in a circle in the Flat Earth model when it could very well be traveling in an oval.

A lot of assumptions are made when we start analyzing Latitude and Longitude and what they mean. We already know that airplanes just calculate their distances traveled based on Lat and Lon, rather than a direct measurement of the earth's surface. There is no such thing as a speedometer for an airplane.

Things may be somewhat off, and one may attribute discrepancies and imprecision to wind conditions, the use or non-use of jet streams, engine performance, or without any attention at all.

I was responding to your comment about longitude, which i see you pretty much ignored. I never asked anything about Polaris......

Do we need to discuss if there are 360 degrees in a circle? If so the forum become meaningless. EnaG uses the fact that a circle has 360 degrees in it, but hey, it does not matter. You can use whatever you want, the military use Mils.

It does not matter what the longitude of a place is. It will not affect the suns apparent altitude at meridian passage (solar Noon). Why do you think people were able to determine latitude before reliable clocks were invented? The precise time and longitude of a place makes no difference to the apparent altitude of the sun.

I see you have trouble understanding this tom, and cannot really help it that you are being deliberately obtuse.

The diagram plotting the suns altitude against lattitude shows it impossible for the earth to be flat.

What about ships tom? We measure the distance over the surface of the ocean. We do have speedometers, calibrated and verified against the sea bed, irrespective of if the world is flat or round. So why dont we know how far we travel?

I see you dodged this question 6 times already on different threads. Why is that tom? Too embarrassed to answer?

I also see that Rowbotham uses distances travelled by ships in CVhapter XIV as data to “prove” he hypothesis. Is he wrong?

[SiDawg]

To play devil's advocate, i don't think he's saying that a degree isn't a degree, but saying that the land positions that we accept as being a certain distance apart arn't necessarily at that distance. In other words, it's not that the longitudinal distances aren't a certain fixed distance apart, but more that the location of cities on those longitudinal lines isn't known.

What would be interesting is taking all those lines from the initial experiment, and "forcing" them to line up to a certain arbitrary point. That should then give you some supposed distances, or ratios of distances, between different points. That should be suitable to either start to draw a flat earth map, or in itself prove the impossibility of a flat earth map

[Tontogary]

To play devil's advocate, i don't think he's saying that a degree isn't a degree, but saying that the land positions that we accept as being a certain distance apart arn't necessarily at that distance. In other words, it's not that the longitudinal distances aren't a certain fixed distance apart, but more that the location of cities on those longitudinal lines isn't known.

What would be interesting is taking all those lines from the initial experiment, and "forcing" them to line up to a certain arbitrary point. That should then give you some supposed distances, or ratios of distances, between different points. That should be suitable to either start to draw a flat earth map, or in itself prove the impossibility of a flat earth map

But thats the beauty of using the measurement of the suns altitude at Noon. It is completely irrelevant what the longitude is!
Before the days of the marine chronometer to accurately measure time on a moving platform (ship) it was very easy to take lattitude by measuring altitude and using the suns declination to determine the latitude. Now given the latitude, and the suns declination it is easy to determine the altitude.
All completely independent of the knowledge of longitude, how far round the round earth you are, or along which spoke of the wheel you are. The altitude measurement is independent of time and longitude.

Tom does not seem to understand that simple concept.

As for Polaris “descending” towards the horizon as the observer changes latitude, that is correct, (but Polaris just doesn’t move, the observer does) but he has introduced a whole new and unexplained theory in there, namely that the rate of doing so is variable! Where did that one come from?
If the pole star is on a plane above the plain earth, i would love to know how moving along a flat earth away from it, makes perspective “variable” that is unexplained and rather daft.
He might as well say magic pixies move it around for each observer.

He is clutching at straws, and makes himself look a fool.