[Tom Bishop]

The principles of Zeteticism are to consider all possibilities when formulating a test or conclusion. By not accepting other possibilities your conclusion is to a fault.

Apart from you actually trying out the string experiment it would seem, where your pathological dodging of the issue has become a running joke.

Again, why should I use a string that can bend when the ends are forced between two points rather than a ruler or board that cannot bend? Another attempt at deception?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

By all means Tom take whatever you feel necessary, string (dog lead in my case) has its advantages as it’s easy to carry and if you stretch at arm’s length it is very easy to keep straight, but if you doubt your ability to keep a piece of string taut then take a couple of metres of straight material of your choice and do it, I’m sure you will present your meticulous experimentation to us shortly.

[Rama Set]

Tom Bishop: You guys should really do the experiment, it is your burden to prove.
RE Collective: No problem.

(A short time later)

RE Collective: Ok, so we did it, and it looks like the OP was incorrect.
Tom Bishop: But, but, but, you guys are wrong.
RE Collective: Don't take our word, do it yourself.
Tom Bishop: You guys are obviously trying to trick me.

Really great thread.  10/10 from Tom Bishop.

[garygreen]

Again, why should I use a string that can bend when the ends are forced between two points rather than a ruler or board that cannot bend? Another attempt at deception?

you're supposed to hold the string taut, tom.  a taut string is a straight line.  if you somehow have never done this before, it's super easy: just pull the two ends of the string away from one another with your fingers.  you'll notice that it makes a straight line.

as jura points out, though, you can use a yardstick if you like.  any straight line will work.

i went out and did it again this morning.  worked perfectly.  the string was taut, perpendicular to the moon's terminator, and pointed right at the sun.  you should have a good view of both the sun and moon in the morning for at least the rest of the week.  there's no excuse not to try it yourself.

[Nirmala]

I just did the string experiment for the first time. It worked flawlessly. And I had no problem keeping the string straight. I am not sure what kind of string Tom Bishop uses that he is so concerned about it bending under tension, but it is not any kind of string I have ever encountered. But, as has been mentioned several times now in this thread, a straight measuring stick or dowel will work fine.

I love it when an optical illusion is undone. It loosens up my perceptions in a very interesting way. Be sure to watch this one to the end:



This one is also really fun:

[Tom Bishop]

You do realize that in order for this to be a perspective effect the sun would need to change its distance to you significantly throughout the day. The 93,000,000 mile sun in the Round Earth model does not change distance to you appreciably throughout the day, and so a comparisons in this thread to one end of the hallway seeming lower than the ceiling above you is inappropriate.

The T-Rex illusion, for example, would not happen if that T-Rex were 93,000,000 miles away in that scene -- you would need to travel for millions of miles around the T-Rex to recreate it (assuming you could see it).

The sun is so far away from you in the Round Earth model that there aren't really any "perspective effects" that it could apply to it. The excuse of a perspective effect for this phenomena under RET is an absurdity, and is in no possible way a mechanism for this "celestial sphere".

[Nirmala]

You do realize that in order for this to be a perspective effect the sun would need to change its distance to you significantly throughout the day. The 93,000,000 mile sun in the Round Earth model does not change distance to you appreciably throughout the day, and so a comparisons in this thread to one end of the hallway seeming lower than the ceiling above you is inappropriate.

The T-Rex illusion, for example, would not happen if that T-Rex were 93,000,000 miles away in that scene -- you would need to travel for millions of miles around the T-Rex to recreate it (assuming you could see it).

The sun is so far away from you in the Round Earth model that there aren't really any "perspective effects" that it could apply to it, and the excuse of a perspective effect for this phenomena under RET is nonsense.

The effect of the T-Rex illusion works just as well if you are stationary and the T-Rex is rotated in position. So it would work at any distance as long as you could still distinguish the features of the T-Rex, say through a telescope.

And in the case of the sun, it is the earth that is rotating in order to change the apparent position in the sky of the relatively stationary sun. So no, the sun would not need to change its distance from the earth to create the perspective effects referred to in this thread.

[Tom Bishop]

The effect of the T-Rex works just as well if you are stationary and the T-Rex is rotated in position. So it would work at any distance as long as you could still distinguish the features of the T-Rex, say through a telescope.

That is not recreating the scene.

And in the case of the sun, it is the earth that is rotating in order to change apparent position in the sky of the relatively stationary sun, so no, the sun would not need to change its distance from the earth to create the perspective effects referred to in this thread.

No. The sun would need to change its distance to you very significantly if we are going to say that it can change its angles like the end of a long hallway. A rotating earth doesn't change your distance to the sun. It's really just a rotating camera. Rotating your camera around doesn't change perspective angles of distant bodies.

The angles don't change between the two railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene when the camera makes a 360 degree roll upside down, nor does the angle between the vanishing point of the railroad track and a streetlight above your head change when the camera rolls around. The angles between bodies do not change at all.

[Nirmala]

The effect of the T-Rex works just as well if you are stationary and the T-Rex is rotated in position. So it would work at any distance as long as you could still distinguish the features of the T-Rex, say through a telescope.

That is not recreating the scene.

And in the case of the sun, it is the earth that is rotating in order to change apparent position in the sky of the relatively stationary sun, so no, the sun would not need to change its distance from the earth to create the perspective effects referred to in this thread.

No. The sun would need to change its distance to you very significantly if we are going to say that it can change its angles like the end of a long hallway. A rotating earth doesn't change your distance to the sun. It's really just a rotating camera. Rotating your camera around doesn't change perspective angles of distant bodies.

The angles don't change between the two railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene when the camera makes a 360 degree roll upside down, nor does the angle between the vanishing point of the railroad track and a streetlight above your head change when the camera rolls around. The angles between bodies do not change at all.

Rotating the T-rex does recreate the optical illusion which is the relevant point.

As for the examples with the camera, I am not sure what you are saying. Camera angles make a huge difference in perspective:
http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/film-studies-101-camera-shots-styles/

[garygreen]

The angles don't change between the two railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene when the camera makes a 360 degree roll upside down, nor does the angle between the vanishing point of the railroad track and a streetlight above your head change when the camera rolls around. The angles between bodies do not change at all.

none of those examples are relevant to this 'illusion.'  all of your examples involve keeping the two points within a small field of view and merely rotating the field of view about its center.  that's not what's happening here.  this 'illusion' happens precisely because both objects are separated from one another by an angular distance greater than our field of view.

i realize i'm being total nag in this thread, but i'm genuinely befuddled by your refusal to perform a simple experiment.  isn't this the whole basis of your worldview, that experiment and direct sense experience trumps all else?  and isn't experiment always supposed to outweigh theory?  am i missing something here?

why are you suddenly only interested in talking about computer models and thought experiments about railroad tracks?  i'll stop being so petulant i guess, but i really don't see how you can take this position.  you have a way to see for yourself whether or not the path is a straight line, and you choose instead to hypothesize about railroad tracks and draw pictures with computers.

[Tom Bishop]

Why are you constantly coming back to this? It is not very thought out and does not tell us anything. Even if I saw the moon pointing at the sun, it does not explain this video where the moon is not pointing at the sun.

[Nirmala]

Why are you constantly coming back to this? It is not very thought out and does not tell us anything. Even if I saw the moon pointing at the sun, it does not explain this video where the moon is not pointing at the sun.

I just did the experiment this morning and the sun and moon were in a very similar relationship to the sun and moon in the video. The illuminated area of the moon appeared to be pointing up when the sun was still low in the sky. Once I connected them with a straight line, it was quite obvious that the illuminated area of the moon was pointing directly at the sun. If someone had carried out the string experiment in the video, there is no reason to expect that it would not have worked.

But as many on this thread have pointed out, you can test it for yourself. Where is your Zetetic sense of honor? Can't you bring yourself to do a simple experiment, even if then you choose to interpret the results differently on here? And maybe you could even post a video of your own experiment. And don't give me a hard time about shifting the burden of proof, this is your thread and your claim that the moon does not point at the sun.

[Tom Bishop]

If you did the experiment why didn't you take a video? We all have cameras and camcorders in our pockets now.

The person in the video in the OP very clearly makes a straight line path away from the moon's phase and it does not point at the sun.

[garygreen]

Why are you constantly coming back to this?

because it directly demonstrates whether or not a straight line perpendicular to the moon's terminator does or does not point at the sun.  also because i can't hold a camera and the ends of a string at the same time.  i would love to hold your hand through the entire process and spoon-feed you the results, but i feel like you're fully capable of holding string in front of you.

it does not explain this video where the moon is not pointing at the sun.

if he'd used a string to actually mark a straight line instead of just imagining it in his head, then he would have seen that it was.  you can see it for yourself, too.  you don't have to take my word for it.  just find a time when it doesn't look like the moon is pointing at the sun, then use the string to make a line perpendicular to the moon's terminator.  you'll notice that it points directly at the sun.

you also don't have to hypothesize about whether or not a taut string makes a straight line.  just get a piece of string and hold it taut from either end.  it doesn't sag into a curve.  i can't believe i'm having to explain this to someone.

this morning when i did the string experiment, the moon didn't look like it was pointing at the sun.  the sun was near the horizon, and the moon's terminator was pointing up and to the left.  then i used the string to make a straight line perpendicular to the moon's terminator.  it pointed directly to the sun near the horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

If you did the experiment why didn't you take a video? We all have cameras and camcorders in our pockets now.

[garygreen]

also because i can't hold a camera and the ends of a string at the same time.  i would love to hold your hand through the entire process and spoon-feed you the results, but i feel like you're fully capable of holding string in front of you.

[Nirmala]

also because i can't hold a camera and the ends of a string at the same time.  i would love to hold your hand through the entire process and spoon-feed you the results, but i feel like you're fully capable of holding string in front of you.

I went out in our garage and found a lightweight rake that has a bar holding the splines that is perpendicular to the long handle. It should be perfect for making a video as I can hold the long rake with just one hand and the perpendicular bar will make it obvious that it is properly positioned. However, the moon is down now, and I am busy the next few days. Maybe someone else can catch it on video tomorrow, or I will try and get to it within the next week or so. Any long handled tool should work, but a perpendicular bar like the one on my little rake would probably add some clarity to what is being seen.

I also have a very cheap smartphone that I hardly ever use, so my video skills are almost nil. Anyone else up to the challenge?

[Flatout]

Tom, why insist we make a video when you could drag you own butt outside and do a little experiment with your own zetetic self.  You are basically that you get your education from YouTube videos.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, why insist we make a video when you could drag you own butt outside and do a little experiment with your own zetetic self.  You are basically that you get your education from YouTube videos.

We already have a video in the OP of the effect that you need to counter. The author makes a straight line path away from the moon and it does not point towards the sun. The evidence is on my side, okay? I presented evidence in the OP of this thread, and you need to explain it or provide some form of evidence against it. You need to do the work for it. You need to provide the counter. Repetitively asking me for evidence is not a valid argument. Evidence was provided in the OP. The ball is in your court.

You tried your perspective explanation, and it did not work. It was easily refuted as the sun is very far away, and not able to change distances from the observer significantly like the ends of a hallway. Points were made about the videos you made, which were ignored, and I can only assume that you are feeling embarrassed about the situation.

If you have anything further to present to me, let me know. Trying to shift the burden isn't going to work.

[Rama Set]

It is really creepy seeing Tom deny what the RE Collective^TM has done time and again in this thread; namely: do an experiment that contradicts the OP, and provide an explanation why.