Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #80 on: November 20, 2017, 01:09:16 AM »
Quote
Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away.

Yes and no in that order :) The former is empirical, while the latter is your interpretation of the sun dipping below the horizon, and easily recognised as impossible via a simple thought-experiment:

Imagine you are standing on some train tracks stretching to the horizon across flat ground. Your assertion is that the horizon is a finite distance away and that the train-tracks genuinely visually intersect : literally zero visual distance between them regardless of how powerful a pair of binoculars we use to inspect them. Let's assume that's true.

Now let's add some tracks parallel to the set we're standing on. Let's add hundreds, thousands of them, all parallel. According to your rules of perspective, they all intersect at the same point on the horizon.

Now let's imagine we have a friend, who starts out standing right in front of us and walks away in a perfectly straight line diagonally across the tracks. We watch him go, getting smaller and smaller, heading for the horizon.

Now, we know from your perspective rules that all these parallel tracks touch the horizon at the exact same point. So we know it doesn't matter which set of tracks he's standing on at the time: when he leaves our sight it must be at the vanishing point of our own set of tracks. So we watch and we wait, confidently expecting his receding figure to start converging towards the singularity on the horizon.

But it doesn't happen. His figure gets smaller and smaller and passes out of sight over the horizon a full 45 degrees away from our vanishing point. How is that possible? He's only traveled a finite distance, only crossed a finite number of tracks - he's standing on a line that runs parallel to our own, and from your rules we know that they all converge to the same point on the horizon. Except the track he's standing on as he crosses the horizon clearly hasn't converged to the vanishing point of our tracks.

Let's say our friend crossed 1000 tracks on his journey to our horizon. We enlist the help of another friend and send her off at a shallower angle, so that she only crosses 500 tracks before reaching our horizon. But she doesn't converge to our vanishing point either. We send more and more friends at shallower and shallower angles crossing fewer and fewer tracks, but to no avail.

Uh oh; where did we go wrong?

The error is pretty obvious: given that the horizon itself does not have zero visual (horizontal) width, and there is only a finite amount of stuff/gaps to fill it with, stuff/gaps cannot possibly attain zero visual width at the horizon. And as our train tracks are made of just regular stuff and gaps, it follows that they cannot and do not attain zero visual width or separation at a horizon a finite distance away, regardless of which direction we imagine them being laid. Therefore, parallel lines viewed in perspective do not intersect over a finite distance. QED.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 11:17:39 AM by JocelynSachs »

Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #81 on: November 20, 2017, 03:55:15 AM »
Here's an example photo to illustrate JocelynSachs' point:



The second set of railroad tracks do not converge to the same point as the center tracks. The telephone/power poles that also run parallel also do not converge to the same point.

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #82 on: November 20, 2017, 04:13:50 AM »
Can anyone think of a way to get Tom to understand that parallel lines converging is an effect of how we see things, not how they actually exist?

Offline Mark_1984

  • *
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #83 on: November 20, 2017, 04:18:21 AM »
Might be easier to start with something simple like secondary school maths...... on second thoughts......

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #84 on: November 20, 2017, 05:11:37 AM »
Tom, what proof do you have that the sun "sees" perspective? It has no eyes. There is no evidence that perspective is anything more than optical. How much more unproven nonsense are you going to create to patch onto FET to attempt to make it work? At some point, you need to recognize that you're just fooling yourself. (though I suspect you don't actually believe this stuff)
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #85 on: November 20, 2017, 09:51:33 AM »
Might be easier to start with something simple like secondary school maths...... on second thoughts......

Refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #86 on: November 20, 2017, 12:50:44 PM »
Who writes ' The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards'?  Complete rubbish.

At sunset when the sun is at your eye level horizon, are you looking upwards or forwards? You are looking forwards, right? That is the reasoning for why the sun is casting its light forwards to reach the target from its perspective.

Under the traditional model, if the sun sent its light forward, it would totally miss the observer, but that model has not been demonstrated to reflect reality, and is contradictory to the fact that we are not looking upwards when the sun is at the horizon.

If you refer to my diagram - you'll note that we are simply talking about how the light (or warmth) from the sun arrives at the man's head.   It doesn't matter whether his eyes are open or closed - looking up or down.   Indeed, we could reduce the problem to placing a white plaster sphere in place of the man with an second observer looking at the sphere and asking which half of it is in light and which half in shadow.   If the sun were truly in the direction of the horizon (as it is in RET) then the line between light and dark would be vertical at sunset.   But in FET, the sun is 3000 miles above the ground and the sun's rays are descending at an angle close to 30 degrees - so the line between light and dark would be at an angle of 30 degrees to the vertical.

What we're discussing here has NOTHING to do with human vision or vanishing points or perspective...it's merely a question of how the photons get from here to there.

So we're left with this new and interesting quote:

Under the traditional model, if the sun sent its light forward, it would totally miss the observer,

...which (for a flat earth) we do actually agree on...for a round earth, the "traditional model" works just fine.

So you're now in the realms of denying basic geometry in order to get FET to work...right?

Can we be crystal clear on this - you are now denying that basic geometry works...right?

In your world, photons travel in a straight line, horizontally from the sun (because light travels in straight lines) - but none the less crosses the horizon and arrive at the observers' face horizontally.

In your view, in my diagram, the pink line is a straight line...correct? 

I want to be REALLY clear on this.   This is a statement of your beliefs....right?
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #87 on: November 20, 2017, 03:10:08 PM »
...The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards. The target is forwards -- just as during sunset when we see the sun forwards.


I'm confused. From another thread:


The sun shines light in all directions.

Can you help me understand what you're saying about the sun not shining downwards?

Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #88 on: November 20, 2017, 04:31:38 PM »
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.

By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.

Here's where the magic happens:

In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.

The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.

Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.

As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 04:55:59 PM by JocelynSachs »

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #89 on: November 20, 2017, 05:52:25 PM »
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.

By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.

Here's where the magic happens:

In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.

The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.

Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.

As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.

This is a great explanation of what Tom possibly believes. I have been struggling with his explanations, and this helped a lot. It really is mind blowing. As I struggle to deal with perspective vs reality, just trying to wrap my mind around this is crazy.

Trying to put this into some terms that I can deal with. Basically, the sun vanishes on the horizon because of the perspective of the person, and that "light" knows where it is on the horizon, but if we were to take a set of rail road tracks and lay them in the same line parallel to each other, they would still be parallel even though they appear to be converging on the horizon. Even though we know for certain that the train tracks a parallel to each other regardless of perspective, somehow "light" is able to determine the perspective of the viewer and their position relative to it.

Mind blown!

Not sure if this is a correct summary, so please help if I have stated something incorrectly.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2017, 06:28:04 PM »
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.

By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.

Here's where the magic happens:

In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.

The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.

Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.

As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.

I think that's some sort of a reasonable analysis of what Tom seems to think.

But it all hinges on this idea that something is broken in fundamental geometric precepts like the law of similar triangles...which really can't be wrong because Euclid's proof of them depends on things as fundamental as ruler and compass constructions.

Personally - I don't think we even need to think about eyes and cameras and perspective at all.   We don't have to ask how the sunset LOOKS to the human eye.  We can ask "Do we feel the warmth on our faces from direct sunlight at sunset?" - or "How would a sphere look if it were illuminated by the sun at sunset?"  In these kinds of thought-experiment (or actual experiment) - you can't invoke "perspective" anymore...you MUST talk about the paths the photons take.

Tom won't address that question...we've pushed him closer and closer to the answer.   Today we have:

* The photons leave the sun at 90 degrees to zenith...which I think means "horizontally".
* The photons arrive at your eye horizontally.



But also...

* Photons travel in straight lines.

Which doesn't really work.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #91 on: November 20, 2017, 06:42:16 PM »
You are assuming that space is Euclidean.

In Euclidean Space it would be impossible for anything to appear at the horizon, since it would be an infinite distance away. Since things appear at the horizon in the Flat Earth model, space must not be Euclidean.

Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #92 on: November 20, 2017, 06:49:16 PM »
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.

By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.

Here's where the magic happens:

In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.

The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.

Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.

As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.

I think that's some sort of a reasonable analysis of what Tom seems to think.

But it all hinges on this idea that something is broken in fundamental geometric precepts like the law of similar triangles...which really can't be wrong because Euclid's proof of them depends on things as fundamental as ruler and compass constructions.

Personally - I don't think we even need to think about eyes and cameras and perspective at all.   We don't have to ask how the sunset LOOKS to the human eye.  We can ask "Do we feel the warmth on our faces from direct sunlight at sunset?" - or "How would a sphere look if it were illuminated by the sun at sunset?"  In these kinds of thought-experiment (or actual experiment) - you can't invoke "perspective" anymore...you MUST talk about the paths the photons take.

Tom won't address that question...we've pushed him closer and closer to the answer.   Today we have:

* The photons leave the sun at 90 degrees to zenith...which I think means "horizontally".
* The photons arrive at your eye horizontally.

{picture snipped for post length}

But also...

* Photons travel in straight lines.

Which doesn't really work.
But remember, Tom claims perspective isn't a result of the eye or viewing things. It's a physical phenomena that all objects experience. Hence the image of the sun 'seeing' the person at it's height in his earlier image. So while I think Jocelyn's description appears relatively spot on, just eliminating lenses in all forms doesn't help us. Thinking about it, I see another important point to add. This 'feels/sounds right' in my head, we'll see how well I transfer it to paper.

"The horizon always rises to eye level" is a fundamental part of FE. Since this happening is an aspect of perspective, and all objects experience perspective, we have the horizon always at 'eye' level for all things. So this makes a straight line from your eye to the horizon. This means light follows a straight line to the horizon from your eye no matter where you are. Thus, when we reach the horizon of the sun's perspective, we appear to be at the height of the sun from the sun's view, and thus the light travels in a straight line between us and the sun, and the light arrives horizontally.

My head hurts a bit trying to work through that properly, but I *think* this is what's being stated.

You are assuming that space is Euclidean.

In Euclidean Space it would be impossible for anything to appear at the horizon, since it would be an infinite distance away. Since things appear at the horizon in the Flat Earth model, space must not be Euclidean.
Only if you presume we live upon a flat Earth right now. Upon a round Earth the horizon is a natural result of the Earth curving away from you over time. You are begging the question again Tom, and making assumptions.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #93 on: November 20, 2017, 06:55:56 PM »
You are assuming that space is Euclidean.

In Euclidean Space it would be impossible for anything to appear at the horizon, since it would be an infinite distance away. Since things appear at the horizon in the Flat Earth model, space must not be Euclidean.
...or the Earth isn't Flat.


Ahhh!   So now you're playing the "non-Euclidean geometry" card...I wondered how long it would be before you got THAT desperate.

So you've given up with the other pathetic explanations?  No more magic perspective?

Well, I'm sorry - it doesn't help.   If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon.   When the sunlight peeks between the leaves of the tree - that final path of light from tree and from sun have to be exactly the same.

Also, any geometry that distorted the position of the sun by that much would also distort it's shape to a similar degree - so the sun couldn't possibly be circular when it was distorted enough to reach the horizon.

Also - imagine the light going in the opposite direction.

If I aim a laser at the setting sun (through a convenient gap in the leaves) how does my laser "know" to turn upwards towards the sun - or to continue onwards to a distant mountain that's 100 miles away?    It can't go in both directions.   But light paths are reversible.

OK - so that's dismissed that one.

What's your next desperate move Tom?
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #94 on: November 20, 2017, 11:17:32 PM »
You are assuming that space is Euclidean.

In Euclidean Space it would be impossible for anything to appear at the horizon, since it would be an infinite distance away. Since things appear at the horizon in the Flat Earth model, space must not be Euclidean.

Non-Euclidean space doesn't rescue your model; sorry.

What you seem to be hoping for is this:



The warping of space in the right hand image makes the sun appear on the horizon to the observer. Yay!

But there's a fatal problem: the ray of light in the right hand image is not straight. It looks straight to us, because I've visually overlaid a euclidean straight line on a warped, non-euclidean space. But it's the floor that's actually 'straight' in the right hand image: it's following a straight line within the warped space. The light ray in the right hand image, on the other hand, is travelling in a weird curve, physically changing direction to counter the curvature of space.

To illustrate that, here's what happens if I apply a reverse transformation to visually cancel out the warping of space (sorry it's a bit rough):



As you can see, the light ray is not travelling in a straight line, but following a long swooping curve, changing direction for no reason.

Now, there is an alternative transformation I could apply, based on the assumption that space in the right hand image is not just bent but also pinched, so that both the floor and the light ray are actually straight and parallel. But that doesn't help us either. Why? Because if the floor and the light ray are straight and parallel, then that is also the path our eye would follow if we walked towards the sun. We would become shorter as we entered the pinch, and taller as we came out the other side, and eventually end up standing staring at the sun floating at head height in front of us. Just as catastrophic is the fact that the same space would need to be warped differently for each observer.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 09:59:01 AM by JocelynSachs »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2017, 12:26:30 AM »
If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon.
Also including the ones used by FE to calculate the height of the sun above the flat earth, as I've pointed out before.  Which means the sun could be at any height.  Which is the same as saying that nobody can know anything about the sun's height, since how would you know how much curvature the light has?

It's much easier to assume the light has NO curvature and see where that takes you.  I seem to recall Tom once saying as much...
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 01:17:21 AM by Rounder »
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2017, 03:50:57 PM »
If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon.
Also including the ones used by FE to calculate the height of the sun above the flat earth, as I've pointed out before.  Which means the sun could be at any height.  Which is the same as saying that nobody can know anything about the sun's height, since how would you know how much curvature the light has?

It's much easier to assume the light has NO curvature and see where that takes you.  I seem to recall Tom once saying as much...

The problem for non-Euclidean spaces is that land and light and eyes and cameras would all be non-Euclidean.   The only way to TELL that you're in a non-Euclidean space is to test things like whether the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees and whether pythagoras's theorem works.

The biggest, and simplest, way to show that Tom is talking more horseshit is to do this (either for real - or as a thought-experiment):

1) Draw 200 thirty mile diameter suns next to each other in a 6000 miles horizontal line from zenith where you're standing at sunset to zenith where it's midday.
2) These represent the positions where the sun was at zenith at 200 locations spaced 6/200 hours (1.8 minutes) apart.
3) Now draw lines (using Tom's magic perspective/non-euclidean/discrete weird-assed fake math) from the edges of these suns to my eye.
4) We know that the light from the top edge of the sun at sunset had to follow the exact same optical path as the bottom edge of the sun did 1.8 minutes earlier.
5) But if the sun is being pushed to the horizon by some funky non-linear space - then it's angular speed from zenith to horizon won't be constant.
6) Which means that the sun will not remain circular - it'll get squashed into an ellipse.

Since the sun NEVER looks elliptical - there cannot be anything other than true straight line propagation of light...and that defeats Flat Earthism.

Then think about the implications of being able to see sunlight reflected from the undersides of clouds when the sun is BELOW the horizon.   This can't happen in Flat Earth (no matter how the light rays travel) because if they bent that much, they'd hit the ground before they reached the clouds.

The reason Tom has suddenly started talking about non-Euclidean geometry is because he's realized that his earlier statement the "Light travels in straight lines" was killing him.   What he SHOULD have done was to say that he was mistaken about that - and that Electromagnetic Acceleration applies (his earlier theory).   But since he now knows that he's painted himself into a corner - he's grasping at non-Euclidean straws to try to rectify the situation without losing face.

Well...it's not going to work.   If light is curved for WHATEVER reason - then the light from everything is curved in the same exact way - so it would STILL look like the sun was way above the horizon.

The only way to get out of this one is to claim that sunlight, moonlight, starlight, planetlight, cometlight, etc doesn't travel in straight lines - but every OTHER source of light does.

That too would get decidedly funky - things like mirrors would start to behave weirdly.

There simply isn't a way to "fix" FET with anything remotely convincing.

Magic pixie dust (or magic perspective) that does whatever Tom commands it to do is the only way out.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2017, 05:39:33 PM »
Unless Tom has something else up his sleeve, I think he is cooked on this one. He is grasping at hypotheticals at this point - things that can't be empirically proven.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2017, 06:21:34 PM »
Ahhh!   So now you're playing the "non-Euclidean geometry" card...I wondered how long it would be before you got THAT desperate.

I've asked you to demonstrate that the continuous rules of trigonometry and geometry apply to the real world on numerous occasions. You have yet to show that the perspective lines would actually continue approaching each other forever as Elucid predicted in his Euclidean geometry.

Quote
So you've given up with the other pathetic explanations?  No more magic perspective?

My argument has been consistent. Questioning trigonometry's application to the real world is questioning Euclidean Geometry and Euclidean Space.

Quote
Well, I'm sorry - it doesn't help.   If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon.   When the sunlight peeks between the leaves of the tree - that final path of light from tree and from sun have to be exactly the same.

What are you talking about? Curved? No one said anything about curving.

Quote
Also, any geometry that distorted the position of the sun by that much would also distort it's shape to a similar degree - so the sun couldn't possibly be circular when it was distorted enough to reach the horizon.

Where do you get that the sun would be distorted?

Space is non-euclidean in the sense that geometry of space is discrete in that the perspective lines merge to a finite point at 90 degrees and are not continuous. That is what I have been telling you for a while now.

There has been some confusion. Let me clear some things up here:

1. Space is non-euclidean in the sense that geometry of space is discrete. Perspective lines merge to a finite point at 90 degrees and are not continuous.

2. The nature of perspective changes the ORIENTATION of bodies around you. A change of the orientation means that there is a change to where bodies are positioned around you. If you had a super powerful rifle you would need to shoot at the degree to which they appear in reality, not the degree Elucid predicted with his ideas.

3. If you could shoot a bullet at the sun on the horizon, it will hit the sun. It does not mean that the bullet "curved upwards" or whatever crazy thing you are imaging in your head.

I simplified things and said that the sun is at 90 degrees. The visible sun is always technically at some small degree above the horizon, even when it is setting. If you were to aim at the sun, your bullet would travel upwards above the horizon at a slight angle, in a straight line.

4. To bring this in line with our mechanism for sunset, and to talk more specifically about what is at exactly 90 degrees, 90 degrees is technically in line with the waves and imperfections of the earth surface. While the perspective lines are perfect, the surface of the earth is not perfect and little waves and imperfections of the earth's surface will provide a barrier where the sun and other bodies can hide behind as they merge with the perspective lines of the earth, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

If you were to shoot a bullet (or a laser) at the horizon at exactly 90 degrees, it would bring the bullet to the surface of the earth.

5. The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.

Under normal continuous Euclidean space it is impossible for a horizontal projectile to hit a wave below it; so it should travel forever. But the orienting nature of perspective (which is really just an allegory for how space presents itself to us) makes that wave appear in space at 90 degrees eye level, and so if you shoot at that angle that is where it will go.

The actual paths of these objects from a side view is immaterial. Your side view model is just a theoretical construct based on Euclidean space for how things *should* be positioned based on some continuous trigonometry rules. By pointing back to that model you and telling me that things are "curving" you are merely insisting that space operates according to Euclidean rules, when those continuous rules have never really been proven.

The entire scenario can be empirically described in terms of where things appear being where things are. What we see and what we experience is reality, and when we point at objects on the horizon we are really pointing at those objects, not into some void of infinity, and all of this trumps Elucid's hypothesis about a continuous universe.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 07:03:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2017, 06:53:37 PM »


The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.

Your ignorance of science and physics is telling.  A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it.  It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?