[devils advocate]

I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.

TomTom you're too generous, I assure you the embarrassment is ALL yours. (It's not as if any other FEr is going to help you).

I have colleagues based all AROUND the globe and just to make a point I have emailed/called them and asked them to confirm time and date for sunrise AND sunset......guess what. The Info is correct in the following locations;

Nairobi, Mt Kenya, Alberta, Bielefeld, Belize, Brunei, Hamilton Island, Hong Kong, Glasgow, Chamonix, Dulmen, offshore of UAE and London.

Face it Mr B, if it's a debate using facts, logic reason and science then FE is beaten. All you have is irrational belief.... just like religions and they are doing MUCH better than you guys.
Religious belief is legally protected whilst you guys are legally ridiculed. Just become a position of faith, a religion, then you can be at peace.

You can't fight with facts anymore as they are not your friends. But belief could be and I'll fight to protect your right to believe anything you want.

DA

[3DGeek]

Face it Mr B, if it's a debate using facts, logic reason and science then FE is beaten. All you have is irrational belief.... just like religions and they are doing MUCH better than you guys.
Religious belief is legally protected whilst you guys are legally ridiculed. Just become a position of faith, a religion, then you can be at peace.

You can't fight with facts anymore as they are not your friends. But belief could be and I'll fight to protect your right to believe anything you want.

DA

FE'ers are entitled to their own opinions - but they are not entitled to their own facts.

So let's dispute facts - get them straightened out - then opinions will change or people will look foolish.

[JocelynSachs]

There's an easy experiment anyone can do at or near their home to demonstrate to themselves that the earth is not flat.

You will need:

* A camera capable of long-exposure photography
* A tripod (or something to prop the camera on)
* A spirit-level
* A protractor, or some other way of measuring an angle
* A dark, clear night
* Something circular and of a good size, like a large plate or a record.

Point your camera directly at Polaris (or towards the south if you are in southern latitudes). Use the spirit level and the protractor to measure the angle above 'level' the camera is pointing. Note this value down. (NB: If you check on a map, you should see that the angle you measured corresponds fairly well to your latitude).

Now take a long-exposure photograph (or a sequence of long-exposure photographs and composite them) in order to capture star trails.

You will observe that the star trails are circular and concentric.

Now take your circular object (an LP record is ideal), place it on the floor, and take a photo of it from directly above (I'll call this 'on-axis'). You will observe that it appears visually circular.

Now move your camera off-axis, to the side, keeping the record centered in the viewfinder. You will observe the record no longer appears visually circular, but elliptical, and that this effect becomes more pronounced the further off-axis you move.

(Obviously it won't change colour. If it does, you have problems that extend beyond the scope of this experiment).

Bonus points: observe that not only does the record become visually elliptical, but its form is no longer visually concentric. This is difficult to see with the naked eye because our brains are accustomed to compensating for perspective. As you can see from the image below, however, a line drawn through the centre does not span the visually widest part of the record, and there are clearly more red pixels below the line than above it.


If you experiment with photographing the record from different heights and different distances off-axis, you'll notice that there is less distortion from moving (say) one foot off-axis when you are shooting from high up than if you move one foot off-axis shooting from lower down.

Recall the angle you measured when photographing Polaris. This time, aim the camera DOWN by that angle (since we're working on the floor. If you want to stick the record to the ceiling instead, knock yourself out. Not literally).

Without adjusting the angle of the camera, move the tripod or support so that the record is centred in the viewfinder. You have now created a simulation of what star trails close to Polaris would look like if you viewed them from a flat earth: elliptical and not visually concentric.

How the Round Earth model accounts for these observations while FE cannot.

Recall that deviations off-axis that are small relative to the height above the record do not induce significant distortion of the circular appearance of the record. The key word here is 'relative'. In order for star trails to appear circular where you live, it must therefore be the case that your distance from the pole is relatively tiny compared to the distance to the stars.

But if that is the case, then on a flat earth it would be impossible to go anywhere and see Polaris anything other than directly or almost directly overhead. You can check this yourself with your record: you'll find that you can't get anywhere near your measured angle of Polaris without seeing significant elliptical distortion.

So how does the Round Earth model accommodate this?

Quite straightforwardly: in the REM, the deviation of Polaris from directly overhead is not induced by lateral distance from the pole (movement away from the axis), but by the fact that what constitutes 'overhead' is different at different latitudes. All locations on earth are negligibly distant from the polar axis when compared to the distance of the stars.

What if the sky were a dome?

If the sky were a dome, we would still see elliptical distortion of star trails when shot from locations distant from the pole on a flat earth. The only difference is that they would deviate from being concentric in a different way.

Doesn't scale make a difference?

No. A 20cm circle viewed from a height of 1m and 1m off-axis (ie, from an angle of 45 degrees) is visually identical (in that it would exactly obscure) a 200m circle viewed from a height of 1000m and 1000m off-axis. The experiment with the record is a valid representation of what star trails would look like on a flat earth with Polaris at the angle you measured from the horizon.

If the earth orbits the sun, why doesn't THAT cause Polaris to deviate from over the pole?

It does - just not very much. Polaris is around 27 million times further away from earth than the earth is from the sun. Seeing the deviation of Polaris caused by the Earth's orbit is like trying to see something a kilometre away wobble by less than 1/13th of a millimetre - impossible with the naked eye, but detectable with the proper equipment. The deviation caused by the earth's rotation over the course of a day, however, is millions of times smaller than that and completely undetectable.

In any case, this doesn't matter as far as disproving the FE model is concerned. Circularity of star-trails at all latitudes implies that stars must be very, very distant compared to the viewer's distance from the pole. On a flat earth, this would mean Polaris would be directly or nearly directly overhead, everywhere on earth, which it manifestly is not.

[devils advocate]

Thanks Jocelyn, great experiment.

I look forwards to reading what the FE'r has to say about it. It seems they have been busy lately with their other lives as we have only had Tom commenting from the FE perspective recently (and TBH he is clutching at straws now and getting ever more ridiculous in the attempt to keep up the charade).

Welcome to the madness 

[Mark_1984]

A great experiment and explanation Jocelyn.  I'd love to hear the flat earth response, but sadly they seem to be vanishing these days.  Tom is sadly outgunned with his "waves and whatnot," and let's not forget Gary is still popping up now and again, but he makes Tom's posts seem meaningful.

[Tom Bishop]

The answer to the above thought experiment is that you are adopting certain rules to perspective that have never really been demonstrated. The Ancient Greeks alleged that perspective lines operated on the same continuous rules as their trigonometry. But it has never been demonstrated what perspective actually does at long distances. There is no evidence that parallel perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as an example.

There is some empirical evidence that receding bodies get more constant in their progress across the sky as they increase their altitudes, and this can be interpreted to mean that, if the universe does not operate on continuous rules (there is evidence suggesting that we live in a discrete universe), at some point they reach their maximum consistency across the sky. Thus, if the stars are all traveling across the sky consistently, they could not create the angled disk that has been proposed.

See the following article in the Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.



The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.

[Curious Squirrel]

The answer to the above thought experiment is that you are adopting certain rules to perspective that have never really been demonstrated. The Ancient Greeks alleged that perspective lines operated on the same continuous rules as their trigonometry. But it has never been demonstrated what perspective actually does at long distances. There is no evidence that parallel perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as an example.

There is some empirical evidence that receding bodies get more constant in their progress across the sky as they increase their altitudes, and this can be interpreted to mean that, if the universe does not operate on continuous rules (there is evidence suggesting that we live in a discrete universe), at some point they reach their maximum consistency across the sky. Thus, if the stars are all traveling across the sky consistently, they could not create the angled disk that has been proposed.

See the following article in the Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.



The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.

Your 'answer' and 'evidence' are based upon the supposition that the Earth is flat. If the Earth is round, the planes move at a steady pace for exactly the same reason the sun does. i.e. they are tracking a circle above you when remaining at the same altitude. When at a higher altitude, the circle has more space above you, creating a more even look of speed. You are begging the question in your answer. Both models with show this behavior, both can explain it. You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.

[Tom Bishop]

You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.

I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. Perspective was never really proven to operate on continuous trigonometry rules in the first place. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.

[Curious Squirrel]

You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.

I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.

Your evidence is not evidence of your claim though. Did you miss that? If we are on a globe the movement of the plane functions exactly as current perspective claims it should. We only run into issues if we are on a flat Earth. Thus your 'evidence' shows nothing because you have not proven we are on a flat Earth.

[Tom Bishop]

You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.

I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.

Your evidence is not evidence of your claim though. Did you miss that? If we are on a globe the movement of the plane functions exactly as current perspective claims it should. We only run into issues if we are on a flat Earth. Thus your 'evidence' shows nothing because you have not proven we are on a flat Earth.

You do realize that the original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation, right?

The original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation. I provided the Flat Earth explanation, and provided the evidence the explanation was based on. I don't see where I wrote in my above messages "and therefore this proves the earth is flat!" We collect evidence empirically and make the best conclusion from the available evidence.

[Curious Squirrel]

You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.

I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.

Your evidence is not evidence of your claim though. Did you miss that? If we are on a globe the movement of the plane functions exactly as current perspective claims it should. We only run into issues if we are on a flat Earth. Thus your 'evidence' shows nothing because you have not proven we are on a flat Earth.

You do realize that the original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation, right?

I'm simply pointing out that what you claim as evidence for how it works, is only evidence if the Earth is indeed flat.
"There is some empirical evidence that receding bodies get more constant in their progress across the sky as they increase their altitudes" Presupposes the Earth is flat.
You snipped the part where I stated this in your very first reply. I should have perhaps been more clear that was the thrust of my point though. My apologies.

[Rounder]

You do realize that the original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation, right?

The original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation. I provided the Flat Earth explanation, and provided the evidence the explanation was based on. I don't see where I wrote in my above messages "and therefore this proves the earth is flat!" We collect evidence empirically and make the best conclusion from the available evidence.

You do realize we all know you think the earth is not a globe, right?  You provide the Flat Earth explanation, we don't have any reason to believe you DON'T think it proves the earth flat.  Quite the contrary in fact.  If you don't believe a piece of evidence is proof of your position....maybe don't present it?

[Mark_1984]

You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.

I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. Perspective was never really proven to operate on continuous trigonometry rules in the first place. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.

Two points.  If there’s no real evidence for how perspective works, then it’s not a valid proof of a flat earth.
Secondly, common sense says that if you have an infinitely long railway track, the tracks will appear to get closer together, to the point where they appear to touch.  However, they will never appear to cross over.  This can be proved mathematically, but I can’t be bothered as you can easily find the proof with Google, or common sense.

To expand on that, the sleepers appear to get closer and closer together as you get further and further away. We can see this for ourselves, so we don’t need any more evidence.  Now, if we imagine a train running down the track, it gets smaller as it gets farther away.  The rate of ‘shrinkage’ slows as it gets further away (think back, the sleepers appear to get closer together) but as the tracks never actually touch, to train never gets to the vanishing point.  The tracks never appear to cross over.  This also explains why objects far away seem to travel slower than ones close up.

This is your proof that perspective is well understood, whether you understand it or not.  Like I said, Google the maths, or use common sense.  Mind, you think all waves are bigger than heads, so I should stick to google!

As an aside, this explanation works on a flat earth. 

[Tom Bishop]

Two points.  If there’s no real evidence for how perspective works, then it’s not a valid proof of a flat earth.

Who said that the observations of planes was a proof that the earth was flat? 

Secondly, common sense says that if you have an infinitely long railway track, the tracks will appear to get closer together, to the point where they appear to touch.  However, they will never appear to cross over.  This can be proved mathematically, but I can’t be bothered as you can easily find the proof with Google, or common sense.

Who said anything about them crossing over?

[Mark_1984]

Earth Not Globe uses perspective as an explanation for sunsets.  If perspective isn’t proved, then it’s not a valid explanation.

You say perspective is the explanation for sunsets.  The sun sets below the horizon, therefore, your version of perspective has things swapping positions. 

[JocelynSachs]

The answer to the above thought experiment is that you are adopting certain rules to perspective that have never really been demonstrated.

It's not a thought experiment. It's a practical, empirical, falsifiable experiment that you can perform yourself. I did not reference a single pre-existing 'rule of perspective'. Nor does one have to involve the horizon; the same experiment can be performed referencing only 'overhead'. If you would prefer I'll go back and make that change so you can stop worrying about planes approaching the horizon etc, which aren't relevant here.

The argument I'm making is straightforward:

1) Viewing circular shapes from significantly off-axis (ie, at a distance to the side that is not small compared to the distance away) makes them look elliptical.
2) Star trails are visually circular at all latitudes, therefore from 1) we cannot be viewing them from significantly off-axis.
3) If moving from the pole to the equator does not constitute moving 'significantly off-axis' then stars must be very distant - many times further away than the size of the earth.
4) If stars are many times further away than the size of the earth, and the earth is flat, then Polaris would necessarily be visible directly or almost directly overhead from everywhere on earth (in the same way as a streetlamp will remain overhead if you stand beneath it and move only a few inches to each side)
5) Polaris appears more than 45 degrees from overhead to most observers.
6) This is a contradiction; something in the above sequence must be incorrect. The only speculative element is the claim that the earth is flat, ergo that is necessarily the faulty claim.

Some ways you could falsify the experiment:

* You could demonstrate that the record does not appear visually elliptical when photographed from the same angle as Polaris appears to you in the sky.
* You could demonstrate that increasing the distance to the record whilst maintaining the same viewing angle causes the record to appear more and more circular:

* You could demonstrate that Polaris is in fact visible overhead or nearly overhead at low latitudes.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur. If you are claiming that perspective operates on continuous rules, that is on you to show.

[Rounder]

I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.

You’ve got that backwards.  You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away.  Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.

You’ve got that backwards.  You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away.  Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.

The sunset is emperically observed to occur. It is on the party claiming that the sun would operate on a special kind of continuous math to demonstrate that claim.

[Mark_1984]

I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.

You’ve got that backwards.  You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away.  Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.

The sunset is emperically observed to occur. It is on the party claiming that the sun would operate on a special kind of continuous math to demonstrate that claim.

There is nothing special about continuous maths. That is the normal type of mathematics. If you think the sunset is an effect of some unusual noncontinuos math, then the burden of proof is on you.

Likewise, perspective changes size and speed, but never changes something from being  above to below. If you think it does, then it’s up to you to prove something that is out of the norm.

You can’t (with any credibility) say the sunset is due to perspective and refer to ancient scriptures which are clearly wrong and then not follow up with a proper explanation.