6921

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« 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.

6922

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seasons. How do they work on flat earth?

« on: November 20, 2017, 05:34:48 PM »

By what mechanism does the sun shift its orbit? How does it speed up and slow down to account for the dramatically different orbital sizes?

Unknown.

6923

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment

« on: November 20, 2017, 07:19:01 AM »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?

Because you haven't written the article yet?

6924

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment

« on: November 20, 2017, 05:04:47 AM »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

6925

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 09:38:00 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.

6926

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 08:48:16 PM »

Tom, YOU are the one who wants perspective to do something different to the sun and moon than it does for everything else in human experience.  That means YOU have to show that it does.

If you can show us where we can see the hidden pockets of infinity in the perspective lines I will be willing to concede that it is a concept rooted in human experience.

The argument doesn't depend on any infinities - the diagram uses simple finite numbers.  I could make a scale model of it very easily.

What is wrong with this diagram?   It simply shows where the photons MUST be travelling.  We agree that they go in a straight line.  We agree that there are sunsets.   But if we agree that there are sunsets and that light travels in straight lines - then the only thing wrong with this diagram is that it shows the earth as being flat and the sun being within a few thousand miles away instead of a few million.

The diagram doesn't assume a continuous or discrete universe - it just shows where the photons travel.

Why won't you address this?   Are you scared to?   Does it destroy your world-view?   It damned well should.

I have addressed your diagram on numerous occasions. 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.

The physics in your scene are entirely wrong. You are using a model in which it is impossible for a horizon to exist. It is impossible for railroad tracks to touch a horizon in that model. Railroad tracks touch the horizon at a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.



At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.

The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality. Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.

Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.

6927

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 07:21:46 PM »

Tom, YOU are the one who wants perspective to do something different to the sun and moon than it does for everything else in human experience.  That means YOU have to show that it does.

If you can show us where we can see the hidden pockets of infinity in the perspective lines I will be willing to concede that it is a concept rooted in human experience.

As it is right now, when we see the perspective lines touch you tell us that it is an illusion and quote some math for us. Your argument isn't really based on "human experience".

“Look at them, they appear to rise and set, the same size as when they’re at zenith, therefore it happens” is not proof.

Actually, it is proof that it happens.

You assume we should be so very concerned with coming up with the math necessary to make that happen. You think we should strive to come up with hypothesis, when we do not really believe that things should be explained or decided on based on a hypothesis. Unless the entire ruleset of such a mathematical model can be discovered empirically, you will not see us put forward the type of disgusting hypothetical models you approximate in.

6928

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 06:55:38 PM »

Sunset happens ! At last, something we agree on.  So, you’ve gone from sunset is caused by waves and whatnot, to it radiates in all directions (contrary to your Wiki) but you still can’t see it all the time despite it being well above the horizon all the time, according to basic trigonometry (or are you smarter than Pythagoras?) to sunset just happens, which proves the earth is flat.

You have a lot wrong there. Those are all part of the same explanation, and you are interpreting the Wiki wrongly.

Also, no one said anything about it proving the earth is flat.

There are so many holes and inconsistencies in your arguments, I don’t really know where to start.  So how about this.  On a round earth sunset is easily explained as you rotate from the lit side to the shadow side.  This is my proof that the world is round and spinning. 

According to you, the sun is following a circular track roughly 6000 miles in diameter.  Its 3000 miles high.  It radiates in all directions so I can still see it at its further point, albeit a bit dimmer than during the ‘day’.  It’s 26 degrees above the horizon, using basic trigonometry.  This is its furthest point and lowest declination.

This is my disproof that the sun can set on a flat earth.  Remember, I’m using your ‘facts’ and basic trig which traces its origins back to ancient Egypt.  I don’t want to get distracted into the validity of trigonometry as its fundamental in modern maths.  Here’s a history, just to avoid you using this as a distraction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trigonometry

You are assuming that perspective operates on the basic rules of trigonometry. Trigonometry and Geometry assume a lot of things about the nature of infinity and has a continuous nature that has not really been demonstrated to translate to the real world.

So, demonstrate how the sun can set on a flat earth.  No referring me back to your other literature.  I want it in your words.

I have given you my words. We observe that the sunset happens, therefore it does. That is a direct demonstration that the sunset happens.

Your response is that "according to this model, the sunset cannot happen"

Our response is "before we consider this, please show that this model is accurate"

The conversation usually ends there. The empiricist held an unquestionable truth, while his opponent fought with a questionable hypothesis. Who won and who lost?

6929

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 06:02:23 PM »

Well math works to describe everyday physical relationships and has for thousands of years. If you want proof it works, it does not get any simpler than that. As far as perspective working, all it requires is that light travels in a straight line. If you wish to say it does otherwise, that is up to you to prove.

The Ancient Greek continuous math only works to describe physical relationships if you round the variables and the results -- that is, if you assume a discrete universe.

It has not been shown what kind of math perspective adheres to, and so we should not assume hypothetical concepts such as such as "this math shows that things should be an infinite distance away at the horizon." It must first be shown that the perspective lines operate on a continuous rule set before such a conclusion can be made.

6930

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 03:45:19 AM »

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.

Our claim merely extends to "the sunset happens" and "the sun seems to travel constantly across the sky". Both of these are emperical conclusions and are unquestionable.

YOU are asserting that the sunset can't move constantly or get to the horizon based on certain continuous mathematical rules. It is up to YOU to demonstrate YOUR claims.

6931

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 02:41:59 AM »

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.

6932

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 12:47:03 AM »

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.

6933

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 18, 2017, 03:01:28 AM »

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?

6934

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does the moon also cast a "flashlight" beam?

« on: November 18, 2017, 01:42:34 AM »

Where does it say that the sun's light is a "flashlight" beam?

6935

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 17, 2017, 08:28:16 PM »

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.

6936

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 17, 2017, 08:09:47 PM »

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.

6937

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are stars?

« on: November 17, 2017, 07:42:14 PM »

Can someone please explain what stars are?

It is unknown what the stars are. That is not empirically demonstrable.

6938

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 17, 2017, 07:16:25 PM »

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.

6939

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An experiment I want every single one of you to explain

« on: November 17, 2017, 06:49:21 PM »

Read Earth Not a Globe for diagrams of perspective and for further information.

Looked there, the explanation is flawed.  E.g.  it refers to a row of lamp posts diminishing as they get further away.  True, but on a plane they get closer and closer to the horizon, but never actually touch it.  The sun, on the other hand, clearly drops below the horizon. 
If you do some simple trigonometry, you could work out the lowest angle the sun gets to.

The diagram is flawed in one VERY important way.

It shows the "perspective view" of the lamp posts with the posts getting shorter - but still equally spaced from left to right.  That is NOT how things look in perspective.

http://www.virtourist.com/europe/italy/bologna/imatges/13.jpg

Notice that while the columns get shorter - the also get closer together.  That's because perspective works not just in left-right and up-down - but also in the near-far direction.

Failure to understand this crucial point underpins 99% of the ridiculous things that FE'ers say about perspective - and just about every diagram they post contains the same stupid mistake.

Fix that brain-glitch and they lose their beloved "magic perspective" and everything falls apart for them.

The lamp posts are not equally spaced. Why are you so dishonest in your arguments?

6940

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: November 17, 2017, 05:27:05 AM »

1. It doesn’t matter how much wind there is up there, it’s getting them to the right place in the first place.  Wind on the way up !

And you don't think it's possible to put some mode of transporation on there?

2. Reddit.com ?  Not exactly a reliable source of evidence

It is a pretty striking example.

3. Of course NASA was a key player during the space race which was part of the Cold War.  However, why every country (with space technology) participate in this charade ?  The Cold War is over !

Incorrect. The Cold War never ended. Look at the proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia. Vladimir Putin himself says that it never ended.