The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: JustHereForThisQ on November 14, 2017, 06:29:43 AM
-
You can try this yourself, you might need to travel a little but trust me it's worth it. Go to a beach on the west coast of any country, lay on your stomach on the sand close to sunset time, looking at the sun over the water. When you see the last slither of the sun go away, stand up quickly. I guarantee you will see the sun a second time, because it has gone over the curved edge of the horizon. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you want to have your view seriously challenged, try it.
-
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
-
What proof have you got that it’s caused by waves ?
-
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
Can you elaborate the explanation of 'existence of waves' and what supporting proofs, artifacts you have if you have performed this yourself. Please share we are waiting.
-
You want proof of the existence of waves? ???
-
You want proof of the existence of waves? ???
Don’t be obtuse. Prove beyond all doubt that the existence of waves give the effect of the sun setting again when you stand up.
-
You want proof of the existence of waves? ???
Don’t be obtuse. Prove beyond all doubt that the existence of waves give the effect of the sun setting again when you stand up.
It needs to be proven "beyond doubt" that ocean waves are taller than your head when you lay on your belly at the water's edge? Okay...
-
You want proof of the existence of waves? ???
Don’t be obtuse. Prove beyond all doubt that the existence of waves give the effect of the sun setting again when you stand up.
It needs to be proven "beyond doubt" that ocean waves are taller than your head when you lay on your belly at the water's edge? Okay...
Yes, it does. We’re you there, did you measure them. Did you measure the size of the observers head.
-
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
In what situation would I change and broaden my perspective lines?
-
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
So do things look bigger from higher up or is the component of perspective that transforms the eye's images down effected separately to the perspective that scales the eye's image?
Surely if the sun was thousands of miles high then a six foot difference in height would have a tiny effect on perspective.
-
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
Ah...if in doubt..."magic perspective" to the rescue!
-
So Tom, can we have a diagram showing how the perspective broadens as you stand up ? Maybe I’m a bit simple, but I can’t picture it.
While you’re at it, I’m still waiting for your proof that waves are always higher than your head when you’re laying on your belly.
-
So Tom, can we have a diagram showing how the perspective broadens as you stand up ? Maybe I’m a bit simple, but I can’t picture it.
While you’re at it, I’m still waiting for your proof that waves are always higher than your head when you’re laying on your belly.
And do be sure to include only verifiable, empirical evidence.
-
So Tom, can we have a diagram showing how the perspective broadens as you stand up ? Maybe I’m a bit simple, but I can’t picture it.
While you’re at it, I’m still waiting for your proof that waves are always higher than your head when you’re laying on your belly.
And do be sure to include only verifiable, empirical evidence.
Am I the only one that's starting to feel sorry for Tom? He is outgunned so badly.
-
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
In what situation would I change and broaden my perspective lines?
Increasing your altitude changes your perspective lines and allows you to see more distant lands. It will take a further amount of land to reach the Vanishing Point.
This is why it would take longer for the sun to set while you are at higher altitudes, and why the sun can be restored by rapidly increasing your altitude immediately after sunset.
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase in height at the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
-
You want proof of the existence of waves? ???
Don’t be obtuse. Prove beyond all doubt that the existence of waves give the effect of the sun setting again when you stand up.
It needs to be proven "beyond doubt" that ocean waves are taller than your head when you lay on your belly at the water's edge? Okay...
Yes, it does. We’re you there, did you measure them. Did you measure the size of the observers head.
You can look up the average size of waves and swells in the ocean for yourself. I am not interested in educating you on ocean waves.
-
So Tom, can we have a diagram showing how the perspective broadens as you stand up ? Maybe I’m a bit simple, but I can’t picture it.
Diagrams for perspective are in Earth Not a Globe, and what I have explained is descibed there as well. Perspective appears throughout the material. Go and read it.
While you’re at it, I’m still waiting for your proof that waves are always higher than your head when you’re laying on your belly.
Pass.
-
You want proof of the existence of waves? ???
Don’t be obtuse. Prove beyond all doubt that the existence of waves give the effect of the sun setting again when you stand up.
It needs to be proven "beyond doubt" that ocean waves are taller than your head when you lay on your belly at the water's edge? Okay...
Yes, it does. We’re you there, did you measure them. Did you measure the size of the observers head.
You can look up the average size of waves and swells in the ocean for yourself. I am not interested in educating you on ocean waves.
No, you've made the huge claim that waves are always bigger than the hight of your head, but offered no proof whatsoever. What evidence have you got. I put it to you that it's merely your personal opinion. In fact, your claim that waves are always big is even more outlandish that refusing to believe that the sun rise and sun set times on dateandtime.com are inaccurate. You're the one who's always stating the importance of indisputable evidence. Here's your chance to walk the talk.
-
You want proof of the existence of waves? ???
Don’t be obtuse. Prove beyond all doubt that the existence of waves give the effect of the sun setting again when you stand up.
It needs to be proven "beyond doubt" that ocean waves are taller than your head when you lay on your belly at the water's edge? Okay...
Yes, it does. We’re you there, did you measure them. Did you measure the size of the observers head.
You can look up the average size of waves and swells in the ocean for yourself. I am not interested in educating you on ocean waves.
No, you've made the huge claim that waves are always bigger than the hight of your head, but offered no proof whatsoever. What evidence have you got. I put it to you that it's merely your personal opinion. In fact, your claim that waves are always big is even more outlandish that refusing to believe that the sun rise and sun set times on dateandtime.com are inaccurate. You're the one who's always stating the importance of indisputable evidence. Here's your chance to walk the talk.
Not interested. The average height of ocean waves is something you can look into for yourself.
-
Increasing your altitude changes your perspective lines and allows you to see more distant lands. It will take a further amount of land to reach the Vanishing Point.
This is why it would take longer for the sun to set while you are at higher altitudes, and why the sun can be restored by rapidly increasing your altitude immediately after sunset.
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase in height near the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
I think your logic is twisted. Imagine the sun is like a spotlight, throwing a cone shaped bean of light from it's 3000 mile altitude. It's goes from a 32 mile diameter to what, say a 3000 mile pool of daylight. That gives a beam angle of about 90 degrees, or 45 degrees on each side of the beam. Therefore, if I stand up at the moment of sunset, I should be in darkness. Or to think it the other way, if I am standing up at sunset, and suddenly sit down, then I should see a second sun set.
As for the dime and the elephant, if I hold a dime so it just obscures the elephant, then stand up, it still just obscures the elephant. On a round earth I would see farther as I can see the little bit further over the horizon, but on a flat earth it would make no difference at all.
-
No, you've made the huge claim that waves are always bigger than the hight of your head, but offered no proof whatsoever. What evidence have you got. I put it to you that it's merely your personal opinion. In fact, your claim that waves are always big is even more outlandish that refusing to believe that the sun rise and sun set times on dateandtime.com are inaccurate. You're the one who's always stating the importance of indisputable evidence. Here's your chance to walk the talk.
Not interested. The average height of ocean waves is something you can look into for yourself.
Oh dear, poor Tom has run out of options, so is simply refusing to discuss the subject. I think that's the first time I've seen Tom defeated.
While we're on the subject of sunsets, can you explain to me why the sun falls below the horizon. If it runs in a circle above the equator (or flat earth equivalent) it should never be lower than about 45 degrees in the sky. Very approximately speaking of course, I don't want to discuss the exact angle.
-
I think your logic is twisted. Imagine the sun is like a spotlight, throwing a cone shaped bean of light from it's 3000 mile altitude. It's goes from a 32 mile diameter to what, say a 3000 mile pool of daylight. That gives a beam angle of about 90 degrees, or 45 degrees on each side of the beam. Therefore, if I stand up at the moment of sunset, I should be in darkness. Or to think it the other way, if I am standing up at sunset, and suddenly sit down, then I should see a second sun set.
That's not how it works.
As for the dime and the elephant, if I hold a dime so it just obscures the elephant, then stand up, it still just obscures the elephant. On a round earth I would see farther as I can see the little bit further over the horizon, but on a flat earth it would make no difference at all.
Well, in this scenerio, the dime is on the ground near the horizon and when you increased your altitude you have broadened your perspective lines and have created a new Vanishing Point further back into the distance.
-
I think your logic is twisted. Imagine the sun is like a spotlight, throwing a cone shaped bean of light from it's 3000 mile altitude. It's goes from a 32 mile diameter to what, say a 3000 mile pool of daylight. That gives a beam angle of about 90 degrees, or 45 degrees on each side of the beam. Therefore, if I stand up at the moment of sunset, I should be in darkness. Or to think it the other way, if I am standing up at sunset, and suddenly sit down, then I should see a second sun set.
That's not how it works.
So how does it work then ? Please highlight the flaw in my logic.
-
I think your logic is twisted. Imagine the sun is like a spotlight, throwing a cone shaped bean of light from it's 3000 mile altitude. It's goes from a 32 mile diameter to what, say a 3000 mile pool of daylight. That gives a beam angle of about 90 degrees, or 45 degrees on each side of the beam. Therefore, if I stand up at the moment of sunset, I should be in darkness. Or to think it the other way, if I am standing up at sunset, and suddenly sit down, then I should see a second sun set.
That's not how it works.
So how does it work then ? Please highlight the flaw in my logic.
The sun shines light in all directions.
-
I think your logic is twisted. Imagine the sun is like a spotlight, throwing a cone shaped bean of light from it's 3000 mile altitude. It's goes from a 32 mile diameter to what, say a 3000 mile pool of daylight. That gives a beam angle of about 90 degrees, or 45 degrees on each side of the beam. Therefore, if I stand up at the moment of sunset, I should be in darkness. Or to think it the other way, if I am standing up at sunset, and suddenly sit down, then I should see a second sun set.
That's not how it works.
So how does it work then ? Please highlight the flaw in my logic.
The sun shines light in all directions.
Ah - so no more "flashlight" sun?
OK - so still...using the bipolar map of your choice - explain (very approximately) where there is visible sunlight at 00:00 GMT. A don't see any way that you can avoid it being an annulus...which makes no sense.
-
Oh dear, poor Tom has run out of options, so is simply refusing to discuss the subject. I think that's the first time I've seen Tom defeated.
The average height of ocean waves is pretty widely available. While the burden of proof is on me on this claim, I have more interesting things to do than find a source for you.
-
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
In what situation would I change and broaden my perspective lines?
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect.
See, I am telling you, he is on a new level with his trolling. My favorite part of this is the "waves", and whatnot statement. The only flaw I need mention is that waves do not operate the way you need them to for this explanation. Waves do not always travel toward the observer, and you know that. In fact, with this argument what you are describing, when a wave runs anything other than toward the observer, you would see multiple sunsets as waves are exactly that. Waves. Meaning they have a peak and a trough. And we know that a wave is both above and below the average line.
Now, I need help as to "whatnot" is. This needs to be explained so we can better understand your point. Maybe the "whatnot" fills the area between the crest and valley of a wave. Lets hope so!
-
In fact, with this argument what you are describing, when a wave runs anything other than toward the observer, you would see multiple sunsets as waves are exactly that.
Its also not only one wave. The waves "build up" in the distance creating the solid line of the horizon you would see when looking out at sea.
I think I have helped you guys out quite enough. Refer to forum searches, wiki searches, and Earth Not a Globe if interested in Flat Earth Theory further.
-
I think your logic is twisted. Imagine the sun is like a spotlight, throwing a cone shaped bean of light from it's 3000 mile altitude. It's goes from a 32 mile diameter to what, say a 3000 mile pool of daylight. That gives a beam angle of about 90 degrees, or 45 degrees on each side of the beam. Therefore, if I stand up at the moment of sunset, I should be in darkness. Or to think it the other way, if I am standing up at sunset, and suddenly sit down, then I should see a second sun set.
That's not how it works.
So how does it work then ? Please highlight the flaw in my logic.
The sun shines light in all directions.
In which case, I should be able to see it 24 hours a day, or at least, it would stay above the horizon but get dimmer.
-
In which case, I should be able to see it 24 hours a day, or at least, it would stay above the horizon but get dimmer.
Here you go:
Increasing your altitude changes your perspective lines and allows you to see more distant lands. It will take a further amount of land to reach the Vanishing Point.
This is why it would take longer for the sun to set while you are at higher altitudes, and why the sun can be restored by rapidly increasing your altitude immediately after sunset.
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase in height near the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
I won't be around any longer. I assure you that you can do some simple searches to find answers to your queries.
-
In which case, I should be able to see it 24 hours a day, or at least, it would stay above the horizon but get dimmer.
Here you go:
Increasing your altitude changes your perspective lines and allows you to see more distant lands. It will take a further amount of land to reach the Vanishing Point.
This is why it would take longer for the sun to set while you are at higher altitudes, and why the sun can be restored by rapidly increasing your altitude immediately after sunset.
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase in height near the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
I won't be around any longer. I assure you that you can do some simple searches to find answers to your queries.
Tom Bishop with the mic drop. lol
Tom, before you depart, can you maybe post a diagram of perspectives at different heights for future reference?
-
So If I am standing on the beach on a fairly calm sea state day the waves typically would be no more than 6ft from crest to trough. Here is a wind and wave finder site used by sailors, kite surfers etc https://www.windfinder.com Pick out the area you want to see for sea conditions in that area then click on one of the dots for a detailed information list. The particular area I was looking at for today was for the Dover to Calais area of the UK English channel which was in fact a maximum of about 3ft today. Let's assume a little higher than that perhaps to my eye level. Given a flat earth, anything above the height of the waves, lets say a low building or promenade should be visible across the 21 mile width between England and France at that point, during good visibility. I am quite happy to concede that with my fairly old eyes it might be a bit distant to pick out, but with even a modest pair of binoculars the low building and promenade would be clearly visible. However on a recent trip to Dover in calmer conditions than today, from the beach I could see nothing of the French coastline, just a clear horizon line. On the other hand, when I went to the top of the 350ft cliffs a few minutes later, I could clearly see many miles of the French coastline even without binoculars. How could that possibly be if the planet is flat? The only explanation is that the landmass is below the horizon when viewed from the lower level which could only be possible in a round earth scenario.
As far as I can see, that is clear and verifiable empirical evidence, personally observed of a round earth.
Roger
-
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
Fine then, can I ask, just overall, why would anyone bother to fake this? Fake the real shape of the earth? What possible motivation could you have?
-
The sun, at zenith subtends an angle of about 0.52 degrees.
In RET, that's the size at the horizon too - but in FET, it ought to be smaller because it's further away - but we supposedly have magic perspective AND the magic-bright-object-size-fixer-upper - so it's the same size as it is at zenith there too.
So how high is a wave at the horizon? Well, if your eye was a foot above the water, the horizon would be 1.2 miles away (6336 feet)...the wave (even at 6' tall) would subtend arctan(6/6336) ...which is 0.054 degrees.
So a 6' wave on the horizon would only obscure maybe 10% of the Sun's disk. You'd need a 50' wave to cover it completely.
If your eye was closer than a foot, the horizon would be closer - so a smaller wave would do - but you'd literally have to get your eye within 1/10th of an inch of the water surface...and which point even the slightest ripple close to your face would block your view.
Sorry Tom...it's nothing to do with waves.
-
Oh dear, I think we’ve broken Tom !
The waves are completely irrelevant as when you’re laying down you’re looking across a series of peaks, which are all the same height. You can’t see the troughs.
-
Oh dear, poor Tom has run out of options, so is simply refusing to discuss the subject. I think that's the first time I've seen Tom defeated.
The average height of ocean waves is pretty widely available. While the burden of proof is on me on this claim, I have more interesting things to do than find a source for you.
So then you concede your point. Very good. Also...
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot.
Sig’d this beauty.
-
The average height of ocean waves is pretty widely available.
As are so many of the facts that RE present to you, facts for which you demand ridiculous proof. How’s that shoe feel on the other foot?
While the burden of proof is on me on this claim, I have more interesting things to do than find a source for you.
Glad I was sitting down, Tom admitted that the burden of proof lies with him? :o
-
You want proof of the existence of waves? ???
Don’t be obtuse. Prove beyond all doubt that the existence of waves give the effect of the sun setting again when you stand up.
It needs to be proven "beyond doubt" that ocean waves are taller than your head when you lay on your belly at the water's edge? Okay...
Sure, waves can be taller than your head. How about showing us how waves on an obviously calm sea are taller than the height to which a helicopter can fly?
https://youtu.be/xTkz6Lov7oI?t=211
-
Sure, waves can be taller than your head. How about showing us how waves on an obviously calm sea are taller than the height to which a helicopter can fly?
Great video, shows altitude brings the sun back into view.
Tom said in a thread that waves and trees and things cause the vanishing point at the horizon. When I said therefore sufficient altitude should overcome this and there would never be a sunset seen from a plane at altitude on FE. No more response from Tom on that thread of course.
-
Sure, waves can be taller than your head. How about showing us how waves on an obviously calm sea are taller than the height to which a helicopter can fly?
Great video, shows altitude brings the sun back into view.
Tom said in a thread that waves and trees and things cause the vanishing point at the horizon. When I said therefore sufficient altitude should overcome this and there would never be a sunset seen from a plane at altitude on FE. No more response from Tom on that thread of course.
When you rise in altitude, the horizon rises as well, keeping at your eye level. See this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective
-
The horizon is not at eye-level, except perhaps if you are lying on your belly. This can be verified with any theodolite. #basicperspective
-
As it happens, I’m taking a flight today. I shall pay careful attention to the horizon when we’re at 40000 feet.
-
In which case, I should be able to see it 24 hours a day, or at least, it would stay above the horizon but get dimmer.
Here you go:
Increasing your altitude changes your perspective lines and allows you to see more distant lands. It will take a further amount of land to reach the Vanishing Point.
This is why it would take longer for the sun to set while you are at higher altitudes, and why the sun can be restored by rapidly increasing your altitude immediately after sunset.
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase in height near the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
I won't be around any longer. I assure you that you can do some simple searches to find answers to your queries.
Tom Bishop with the mic drop. lol
Tom, before you depart, can you maybe post a diagram of perspectives at different heights for future reference?
The Wiki gives a description of the presumed effect, but it doesn’t give an explanation. Perhaps a diagram would help us understand.
-
The horizon is not at eye-level, except perhaps if you are lying on your belly. This can be verified with any theodolite. #basicperspective
Tom (via Rowbotham) claims theodolites are inaccurate. I've already expressed my opinion on his 'experiments' but to be helpful I'll quote it here once again.
His entire claim rests on the supposition that the human eye unaided has greater visual acuity than an instrument developed to increase the acuity of the eye. He gives no information on the claimed difference between the theodolites, he tested it upon one circumstance, and his conclusion of the experiment about the post viewed at length is erroneous. He assumes the distance to be flat rather than level when drawing it. In all, his experiments upon it have no documentation, and are poorly executed and barely documented, with a clear bias. In summary, they prove nothing and should be thrown out. So unless you have something better documented you have nothing to stand on in your attempt to claim theodolites are inaccurate.
-
And obviously theodolites from the 1850s are identical to the theodolites of today.
-
As it happens, I’m taking a flight today. I shall pay careful attention to the horizon when we’re at 40000 feet.
Sadly it was cloudy all flight. I shall try again on the way back in a few days
-
Just to recap on some unanswered questions.
We’re waiting for a diagram showing how perspective changes with height.
Proof the the horizon is always at eye level.
Why we have a sunset when the sun radiates in all directions
Why the sun sets below the horizon when it never drops below the plane.
Over to you Tom ?
-
Read Earth Not a Globe for diagrams of perspective and for further information.
-
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.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig63.jpg)
-
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.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig63.jpg)
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.
-
Incidentally - that same problem is the visual analog to the math problem about how parallel lines meet at infinity in perspective.
As the rail tracks get closer and closer together horizontally - the railroad ties get closer and closer in near/far. The closer the rails become, the closer the ties become - and when the rails TOUCH, the ties also TOUCH. Now think about how many railroad ties there must be if they are touching in the near/far direction.
If the spacing of the ties is literally zero - then the number of ties per millimeter in the image goes to infinity. Since the ties are equally spaced - that can only happen if the rails also meet after an infinite number of ties have been drawn. Hence, parallel railroad tracks meet at infinity.
If they met (horizontally) at some shorter distance from the eye - then they wouldn't have "met" in the near/far direction because a less-than-infinite number of railroad ties would have been there - so the distance between them couldn't have shrunk to zero.
This is a mental image of why this would happen - but the math says the exact same thing.
-
exactly, and no matter how many pillars there are, the top of the pillar will always be above the bottom. I can't imagine even a flat earth believer would argue that point.
However, according to the flat earth books, the sun suddenly appears below the horizon, which is the same as saying the pillars suddenly appear upside down.
-
Read Earth Not a Globe for diagrams of perspective and for further information.
I did read that book. It's total BS. How can you continue to rely on it?
-
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.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig63.jpg)
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?
-
That’s not the key point Tom. The key point is that the top of the lamp post is always above the bottom of it. Or do you disagree ?
-
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.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig63.jpg)
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?
Perhaps not *EXACTLY* but in reality - when they posts are half as tall, they are spaced at half the distance - that diagram completely mis-represents that undoubted fact. Photos' don't lie - your diagram does.
-
May I make a suggestion to anyone trying to disprove FET to Tom Bishop?
Advice: Quit now. You could put him into a rocket ship and send him to outer space with a camera and he would come back with pictures of a round earth in his hands and claim its still fake somehow...just give up...the guy can not even conceed that facts are facts..when you cant agree that 2+2 is 4, you will never convince a moron that 2 FErs plus 2 FErs equal 4 Idiots.
-
May I make a suggestion to anyone trying to disprove FET to Tom Bishop?
Advice: Quit now. You could put him into a rocket ship and send him to outer space with a camera and he would come back with pictures of a round earth in his hands and claim its still fake somehow...just give up...the guy can not even conceed that facts are facts..when you cant agree that 2+2 is 4, you will never convince a moron that 2 FErs plus 2 FErs equal 4 Idiots.
Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
Mark_1984 - see also my photos of a sunset during a flight.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7038.msg126919#msg126919
-
"Perspective in the graphic arts is an approximate representation, generally on a flat surface, of an image as it is seen by the eye." I.e., you don't actually see in point perspective. It is a technique for artists to represent a three dimensional reality on a two dimensional surface, whether it be a canvas or a computer screen, to give the illusion of three dimensions. If we really did see in point perspective, I suspect you'd be citing from some sort of ophthalmology text book rather than a coloring book and video games.
-
May I make a suggestion to anyone trying to disprove FET to Tom Bishop?
Advice: Quit now. You could put him into a rocket ship and send him to outer space with a camera and he would come back with pictures of a round earth in his hands and claim its still fake somehow...just give up...the guy can not even conceed that facts are facts..when you cant agree that 2+2 is 4, you will never convince a moron that 2 FErs plus 2 FErs equal 4 Idiots.
We may never convince him - and if we did, he'd probably still continue to deny it.
However, we can (and indeed are) making him look more and more stupid and less and less credible to other people who might come here.
He's been driven to deny basic math, basic science and to claim that diagrams cannot represent reality (right before he uses a diagram of his own). He also contradicts himself left and right. So "convincing Tom" is not the goal here.
Demonstrating, and doing so as clearly as possible, that FET does not, nor cannot work is all that is required.