[Tom Bishop]

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

[TotesNotReptilian]

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

Finally, we are getting somewhere!

I admit that the above gif doesn't completely contradict the bi-polar model. It only contradicts the "Ice wall" model.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?

[Tom Bishop]

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?

Perspective

[Rama Set]

Tom citing an argument using classical perspective.  The pinnacle of hypocrisy.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Tom citing an argument using classical perspective.  The pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I watched the video, I don't see any flaws in the logic.

[rabinoz]

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?

Perspective

The Sun Sets just Fine on a Flat Earth

I have posted this before, but I will try to be a bit clearer this time.

p. 202
"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."

So, according to Rowbotham (and it does reasonably agree with modern figures) the resolution of the human eye is about 1 minute of arc, roughly 3,000 times the size of the object. This reference "WikiLectures, Resolution of human eye gives a similar figure.

The resolution of the eye indicates to us how close two objects can be before they merge and appear as one. Rowbotham uses this criterion in his "Ships on Horizon".

Now, the two objects of relevance here are the sun (very intense and at about 5,000 km high on the FE) and the horizon, a very large "object".

So according to Rowbotham's criterion these objects should be distinguishable to a distance of 5,000 x 3,000 km - you do the sums, they are too big for me.

Claiming that the "vanishing point" of the spacing between the extremely bright sun and horizon is exactly at the horizon (I believe it it given as about 10,000 miles, or 18,000 km, in that video) is a patently ridiculous claim.

The angular separation of the sun and horizon (according ro Rowbothom's criterion) would be near enough to (5,000/16,000) radians or 17.9°.

That video on perspective has a point, except to claim that the vanishing point is only 16,000 km (10,000 miles) away is simply incorrect!

In other words I claim that the Sun does not set a Flat Earth, and no amount of hand waving can make it so.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?

Perspective

Irrelevant, i'm saying if a star/planet/Moon/Sun sets in the west as seen on Ecuador, how does it suppose to rise on the east as seen on Borneo?

[Rama Set]

Tom citing an argument using classical perspective.  The pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I watched the video, I don't see any flaws in the logic.

I feel like the video is creating a false dilemma which stems from a misinterpretation of the geometric drawing he dismissed. That drawing is an accurate side view of the viewing angles of the sun, obviously not to scale. From the perspective of the observer the sun's path would follow the perspective lines from his photo too, I don't think anyone disputes this. Most everyone would agree that the sun would eventually converge with the horizon as well, but that is probably about as far as the agreement will go.

For his argument to have any sort of meaning it needs to be attached to real figures. How far would the sun have to travel to converge with the horizon?  At what altitude and based on what terrestrial distances would this model work?  Why doesn't the sun change apparent size through this entire process?  Most importantly, and this is not dealt with in the slightest in his argument, why does the sun disappear from the bottom up when objects converging on a vanishing point shrink in size until becoming merged with all else in the FOV at that depth of field?

So, sure his logic is alright, but he is not making the case he thinks he is.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Tom citing an argument using classical perspective.  The pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I watched the video, I don't see any flaws in the logic.

I feel like the video is creating a false dilemma which stems from a misinterpretation of the geometric drawing he dismissed. That drawing is an accurate side view of the viewing angles of the sun, obviously not to scale. From the perspective of the observer the sun's path would follow the perspective lines from his photo too, I don't think anyone disputes this. Most everyone would agree that the sun would eventually converge with the horizon as well, but that is probably about as far as the agreement will go.

Are you saying that the path of the Sun and the ground on the Earth is constantly parallel? As if it was flat?

For his argument to have any sort of meaning it needs to be attached to real figures. How far would the sun have to travel to converge with the horizon?  At what altitude and based on what terrestrial distances would this model work?  Why doesn't the sun change apparent size through this entire process?  Most importantly, and this is not dealt with in the slightest in his argument, why does the sun disappear from the bottom up when objects converging on a vanishing point shrink in size until becoming merged with all else in the FOV at that depth of field?

So, sure his logic is alright, but he is not making the case he thinks he is.

The thing is, we've never seen an object that is as massive, and as bright as the Sun travel parallel to the ground, into the distance, to observe what it would or wouldn't look like. Why doesn't the Sun change change apparent size as we rotate away from it? Shouldn't it be observable? Why doesn't it change apparent size as we are closer according to our elliptical orbit?

Your assertion that objects shrink into obscurity due to perspective is not correct. A boat is the most obvious example of that not being the case. A boat doesn't shrink to obscurity, it supposedly goes under the horizon. Also, if the horizon is the Earth curving away from you, as most people seem to believe, shouldn't things in the distance progressively "rotate" away from you? As in a distant skyline, the building should no longer be level, up and down, but more so titled back? Shouldn't the ship we say is going "over" the horizon be skewed?

Now imagine this. You're looking at a ship halfway covered by the horizon... now imagine the distance between you and that ship is the radius of a circle (lets say 3 miles), now swing that radius to your left and right along sea level, forming a arc. If the ship was to your right or left, 3 miles away along that arc, would it be below a horizon? Why would it or wouldn't it be?

[Rama Set]

I feel like the video is creating a false dilemma which stems from a misinterpretation of the geometric drawing he dismissed. That drawing is an accurate side view of the viewing angles of the sun, obviously not to scale. From the perspective of the observer the sun's path would follow the perspective lines from his photo too, I don't think anyone disputes this. Most everyone would agree that the sun would eventually converge with the horizon as well, but that is probably about as far as the agreement will go.

Are you saying that the path of the Sun and the ground on the Earth is constantly parallel? As if it was flat?[/quote]

I am saying that this is the case in almost every FE model I have encountered.

For his argument to have any sort of meaning it needs to be attached to real figures. How far would the sun have to travel to converge with the horizon?  At what altitude and based on what terrestrial distances would this model work?  Why doesn't the sun change apparent size through this entire process?  Most importantly, and this is not dealt with in the slightest in his argument, why does the sun disappear from the bottom up when objects converging on a vanishing point shrink in size until becoming merged with all else in the FOV at that depth of field?

So, sure his logic is alright, but he is not making the case he thinks he is.

The thing is, we've never seen an object that is as massive, and as bright as the Sun travel parallel to the ground, into the distance, to observe what it would or wouldn't look like. Why doesn't the Sun change change apparent size as we rotate away from it? Shouldn't it be observable? Why doesn't it change apparent size as we are closer according to our elliptical orbit?

It does change apparent size. http://webpages.charter.net/darksky25/Astronomy/Articles/sun/sunindex.html

Your assertion that objects shrink into obscurity due to perspective is not correct. A boat is the most obvious example of that not being the case. A boat doesn't shrink to obscurity, it supposedly goes under the horizon.

Because it has not receded far enough to vanish; the vanishing point is deeper in your FOV than the horizon.

Also, if the horizon is the Earth curving away from you, as most people seem to believe, shouldn't things in the distance progressively "rotate" away from you? As in a distant skyline, the building should no longer be level, up and down, but more so titled back? Shouldn't the ship we say is going "over" the horizon be skewed?

How do you know you are not observing the skyline listing?  How much should it be listing?

Now imagine this. You're looking at a ship halfway covered by the horizon... now imagine the distance between you and that ship is the radius of a circle (lets say 3 miles), now swing that radius to your left and right along sea level, forming a arc. If the ship was to your right or left, 3 miles away along that arc, would it be below a horizon? Why would it or wouldn't it be?

Yes, the horizon, barring any optical or atmospheric effects should be the same distance from you.

[D0p3]

I have absolutely no clue on what you are talking about. The stars and everything else make no sense to me, but.... if I can see something over 100 miles away which is supposed to be out of my line of sight then I start to ask questions, how the hell on earth can i see it? Switch Lore Lore Lore from vertical to horizontal makes 666, and what in the dictionary does horizontal mean?? Loving all my "Brothers". Peace.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I have absolutely no clue on what you are talking about. The stars and everything else make no sense to me, but.... if I can see something over 100 miles away which is supposed to be out of my line of sight then I start to ask questions, how the hell on earth can i see it? Switch Lore Lore Lore from vertical to horizontal makes 666, and what in the dictionary does horizontal mean?? Loving all my "Brothers". Peace.

If you have no clue what a thread is talking about, then it is probably best to start a new thread with your question/concern instead of making an off topic comment. Also, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.