41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I have a question about 2 photos I took today

« on: December 15, 2017, 04:03:59 AM »

You are going to need to prove that the rules of perspective operate in accordance to that model, not just post some math from a continuous model where the perspective lines approach each other for infinity and declare it to be true.

Perspective does not operate anywhere but in the head of a human planning a drawing on a flat canvas. Perspective is as fake as a piece of currency, Tom. The sun, monkeys, and elephants do not obey or exist with respect to either one. There are no rules of perspective in the real world; only in the studio.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Trying to be respectful

« on: December 15, 2017, 03:58:55 AM »

I don't see any reason not to orbit a flat earth on first thought unless it's infinite in size. If you ask me to get really theoretical, sure I find problems like gravity/acceleration. But there's no reason the flat earth couldn't be circumscribed with space flight, is there?

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth not a globe - floating Earth

« on: December 15, 2017, 03:55:41 AM »

Roger, some questions about Bedford Levels:

1. Does the canal have any slope/flow in either direction?

2. Have you checked the Geoid contours at that location to be sure that gravity vectors approximate a round earth?

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Out Of Phase

« on: December 15, 2017, 03:51:17 AM »

I haven't thought through this FE sun/moon business that far. But your reasoning sounds okay to me.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: December 15, 2017, 03:47:40 AM »

Perspective operates as it is observed to operate, not according to an ancient model of reality.

Tom, perspective does not operate. Perspective is only an artistic device. It is an invention to simplify art. It is not real.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET's Credit Score

« on: December 14, 2017, 07:47:42 PM »

OK. Jocelyn is exactly right. 

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 14, 2017, 07:45:10 PM »

They try to get around this by saying the ship is behind a "hill" of water.

A hill of water that arises only in front of remote objects? Isn't this tantamount to invoking the Round Earth? Non-parallel gravity?

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I have a question about 2 photos I took today

« on: December 14, 2017, 07:36:29 PM »

True Roger! Myself and the sane world know it is true. Tom still wants proof that it happens infinitely. Now that's the rub......

If Tom will drop the silly idea that perspective is a physical model instead of an artistic device for projecting reality onto a canvas, I can easily give him mathematical/geometric proof.

The angular resolution (angle of view) of a ball is inversely proportional to the arctangent of its distance from the eye. AKA theta = alpha/arctan(distance). Nothing ever disappears. But angular resolutions get small and distortions can obscure small and dim objects. Bright objects can overcome distortion.

The angular resolution (angle of view) of a ball varies upward with its size. AKA theta = arctan(size/distance). Large objects take a long distance to get apparently small (tiny angle of view).

Not difficult.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunshine on bottom of clouds

« on: December 14, 2017, 07:21:59 PM »

Great point. See this excellent thread.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 14, 2017, 07:19:29 PM »

The sinking ship effect is not true

Buddy, pick a line and stick to it. It appears that you're trying to act as if you disagreed about the cause of the effect.

StinkyOne, please clarify. I have often said that according to this site, nothing rises and sets. Sun, moon, stars, mountains, buildings, and ships do not rise and set; they just fade or shrink. And I believe that's very clear.

Are you referring to a "sinking ship effect" explanation in the Wiki?

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 14, 2017, 07:16:31 PM »

The perspective theory is not in contradiction. The minute of a degree mainly refers to human eyesight. But the Monterey Bay experiment you are referencing uses a telescope, not just human eyesight. There is also an effect in our literature where objects beyond the Vanishing Point can be restored by looking at them through a telescope. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

You are tantalizingly close ("human eyesight" and "restored by...telescope"), but you deny the implications of what you are saying. Your esoteric "perspective theory" flies in the face of the accepted fact that perspective is simply an artistic device (invention of artists) for projecting reality onto a painter's canvas. Perspective is not a physical reality.

Your 3000-mile-high Sun is 10 degrees above the horizon at 17000 miles away. Just how far away is your sun at maximum sunrise/sunset distance?

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 14, 2017, 06:32:22 AM »

Yes. So at a minute of a degree is where the horizon line would be. At 23 miles, you must be 36 feet in the air in order to have your perspective lines meet there to allow you to see that far. If you were say, only 10 feet up, your horizon would be 10 miles out. A far cry from your 23 miles in your experiment. Your experiment shows that your hypothesis for perspective is incorrect. It cannot work in the manner you describe, or you could not have seen the opposite shore 23 miles away. You have debunked your own hypothesis, unless your experiment was done in error.

I do not see any holes in the reasoning of CS here. The esoteric perspective hypothesis allows calculating the distance of the horizon as 1/tan(1/60) * height of eye or 3400 * height of eye. In this case, the height of eye is less than 6 feet, so the distance of horizon must be less than 20400 feet or 3.9 miles, unless my math is wrong. CS, our numbers don't exactly agree, but they are in the same ballpark, and I do get 36 feet up for a 23 mile view horizon.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with Governmental Cover-up

« on: December 14, 2017, 06:02:37 AM »

They [airliners] would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Here's another scenario I have not seen addressed as yet. The earth accelerates upward. Do all objects associated with the earth, or in the vicinity of the earth, accelerate similarly? The sun, moon and planets which circle above the earth remain in place (save for the curious vertical variations in their orbits required to explain seasons, eclipses, etc.), relative to the earth, causing one to infer that they are under the influence of the same "unknown force".

Well, it's generally accepted by the Round Earthers here that UA is not the breaking point of this site's FE model(s).

1. Airplanes really do continuously "climb". They don't float.
2. Air is being accelerated just like we are because it and we are pressed against the earth.
3. There's no discernible difference for us between gravity and UA
4. As for celestial objects, it's not a real stretch to believe that UA affects them or doesn't affect them. I don't think anybody has gone so far as to create a model for how they actually move.

As ludicrous as UA seems, it doesn't break any rules. What are more egregious are things like:

1. The sun, moon, stars, ships, mountains, and buildings do not really appear to rise and set at the horizon. They simply fade or shrink.
2. The distances between any four trapezoidal remote world points are not known (admitting they are known would prove they cannot geometrically be represented on a flat figure).
3. Mountains can cast shadows on the underside of clouds from a sun 3000 miles above it all.
4. The time and location of equinox sunset all over the world are not known.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 14, 2017, 05:49:34 AM »

When you are standing on the earth at sea level and look at the earth's eye level horizon you are creating a right angled triangle with the hypotenuse laying upon the surface of the earth.

OK.


<---------------------------------------------
|  A                                  B  ___----
|                               ___----
|                    ___----
|  C      ___----
___----


The earth here does not look flat to me, even at less than 1/60 degree.

When you increase in altitude, the angle of the triangle change and it takes a greater distance to create the requirement for the Vanishing Point, and so it is pushed backwards further into the distance to where the perspective lines are once again separated less than a minute of a degree. The Vanishing Point is now a greater distance away and new lands have been revealed.

When you increase in altitude, the angle of the triangle changes

Why. Please give evidence. I say this is what really happens on a flat earth (and, yes, a flat earth is often is the best model for a small distance):


<|----____
| A          ----____
|                        ----____
| C                 B                ----____
---------------------------------------------

and it takes a greater distance to create the requirement for the Vanishing Point, and so it is pushed backwards further into the distance to where the perspective lines are once again separated less than a minute of a degree. The Vanishing Point is now a greater distance away and new lands have been revealed.

This is not true. Consider your eye on a table. Raise it the least bit above the table and you can see anything on the opposite end (regardless of the length of the table) that takes up a larger angle of your view (the real phenomenon behind what you call perspective) than anything between it and your eye including irregularities on the table and atmospheric disturbances. It's all solely about angle of view and simple geometry. Nothing more. Nothing less. Even at less than 1/60 degrees.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I have a question about 2 photos I took today

« on: December 14, 2017, 03:49:57 AM »

I must add, Tom Bishop, that while your reasoning was not admirable, your patience was admirable indeed. Now, if I ever hear you say that "p" word again, I am going to have to school you. You keep using that word, and I don't think you know what it means. It's just an artistic technique for projecting the real world onto a plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)

If you have your own esoteric meaning, that does not help your case.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon

« on: December 14, 2017, 02:38:13 AM »

Please be sure to do the requested observation for devil's advocate as described at the linked thread as well as give us the youtube links. I am interested too.

If the sun and the moon spin around the earth as seen in many animations on you tube, why the moon is listed up from the bottom up when seen from some locations? I life in the Canary Islands now, and te moon these days rises lifted up from the bottom. Some other times from the side.
Thanks

Watcha

Can you link to one of the animations on Youtube that you've seen please? I would love to see them.

Also can you please confirm that the sunrise/set predicted by timeanddate: https://www.timeanddate.com/  for your location are correct in this: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7980.msg134664#msg134664  post please. I wont de-rail this thread with reasons but should be clear if you check out what's being asked.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I have a question about 2 photos I took today

« on: December 14, 2017, 02:35:16 AM »

See our answers in this discussion: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.0

I'm not sure why you linked the thread, but I thank you for it. It was most upwardly illuminating.

58

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Lunar Nature

« on: December 14, 2017, 12:54:26 AM »

Roger's answer was from a round earth perspective which is incorrect. You should do some research about flat earth theory, there are lots of videos on youtube and articles online.

No Round Earth perspective or assumption is required (though Round Earth conclusion may happen along the way) to do the following:

1. Spectral analysis of the moon.
2. Telescope observations of the moon.
3. Observations about the moon emitting light.
4. Space flight to observe "Facy"-ness of earth.
5. Measurements of shadows and positions.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth not a globe - floating Earth

« on: December 14, 2017, 12:25:45 AM »

Yeah. But frustratingly, where would you post/publish your review? I chose what appears to be the shortest and most transparent of the Wiki articles, the one on Eratosthenes, and posted about it in the Suggestions and Concerns thread out of a sincere desire to be helpful; I hate to see people make fools of themselves. I was told it needed to go in a Debate forum. So I put it there. Any answer? Nope.

It seems to me the only service that can be rendered here is to be a reasonable welcoming presence like CuriousSquirrel for newcomers.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why would we be lied to about the shape of the Earth?

« on: December 14, 2017, 12:21:23 AM »

Hmm. So Tom Bishop is a Russian spy. That would explain why he is so dedicated.