2081

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 07:26:03 PM »

Tom, that is showing your complete ignorance on how cameras and human vision works.  This is totally wrong, and goes against everything we know about human vision, which is a lot.

Lines do NOT stay straight when projected onto the retina. How can they, you are mapping a three dimensional world onto a flat surface, it just does not work. You are completely off base here. The brain has to post-process the image and straighten out curved lines so they seem straight to us.

Wrong. Please, just stop posting. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The retina is not flat. The retina is a concave surface.

You keep using the word rectilinear as if it's magic, but do not apparently understand what it means. You can not have a wide angle lens without distortion at the edges, you need to do more research before saying such things.

It's the word of a rando forum poster here who is continuously wrong versus the word of a camera manufacturer who says that they can make wide angle lenses which keeps straight lines straight.

http://pdfstream.manualsonline.com/d/d0d8a9c8-5572-e6b4-318c-51f70cb6620e.pdf

Please show your sources that human eyes have no distortion with straight lines.  It's a simple sensor and a lens, this will cause distortion, this is a simple fact no matter if you understand it or not.

Oh, now you're asking for evidence that we see straight as straight? How about you post your evidence that we see straight lines as curves? Euclidean Geometry assumes that our vision is rectilinear and undistorted.

https://www.ptgui.com/man/projections.html

"Rectilinear ('flat'): This is the projection of the panoramic sphere onto a flat surface. It is the projection our eyes are used to, the projection of a normal camera. Rectilinear projection has the unique property of preserving all straight lines: any line that is straight in real world, is displayed as a straight line in the panorama. This makes it a suitable projection for architectural panoramas."

Borrow Lenses - https://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/rectilinear-fisheye-wide-angle-lens/

"The majority of lenses made are rectilinear. They most accurately reflect the way that we view the world with our eyes."

On optics - https://www.basicknowledge101.com/subjects/sight.html

"Distortion in optics is a deviation from rectilinear projection; a projection in which straight lines in a scene remain straight in an image. It is a form of optical aberration."

2082

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the size of the sun remain the same throughout the day?

« on: February 19, 2021, 06:21:24 PM »

Just more slowly as they get further away.

Seeing as you've admitted that the size of the lights do not shrink linearly as they progress into the distance, I don't see that there is anything further to discuss on this matter. You admit that the lights do not linearly shrink.

The first three lights in the scene are clearly shrinking much more in proportion to each other:



As compared to the last three lights in the scene:



This supports the previous picture showing that the shrinking size of the lights seems to slow down into the distance to the point where they don't look like they are shrinking at all. Hence, the effect in the Wiki is supported and upheld.

2083

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the size of the sun remain the same throughout the day?

« on: February 19, 2021, 05:53:29 PM »

The lights in your example are all different sizes, as would be expected if they were shrinking to perspective with distance.

The lights don't linearly shrink in the example I gave. The last five lights don't shrink as much as much as the first five lights. They simply are not shrinking to perspective to tiny specs as you imagine they should be.

If you took the picture with the proper exposure they would shrink to tiny dots, just as they should be.  Of course they are not shrinking correctly, the pictures are overexposing the bright lights. 

If they were really tiny dots in the distance, then the halo of overexposure around those tiny dots should shrink too, just as they are doing in your second image with multiple lights.
 
These two halos are shrinking to perspective:



So according to this effect the halos should shrink to perspective as they grow more distant.

They are not appropriately shrinking to perspective in the scene I posted, however. The last five lights don't shrink as much as the first five lights closest to the observer. The shrinking slows down in the distance. The shrinking is not linear.

https://vimeo.com/342791916



 Therefore something else is occurring and this explanation of "overexposure" does not provide a sufficient explanation.

2084

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 05:44:17 PM »

The simple explanation is that wide angle images either from a camera or the human eye will result in a distorted image.

This is a third explanation for the Moon Tilt Illusion. But this argument is so bad that the Wiki does not bother to address it.

"Wide Angle" does not mandate distortion. Human vision is wide angle and rectilinear, meaning that straight lines stay straight. There are also many wide angle lenses which are rectilinear and can keep straight lines straight.

If human vision had enough distortion to cause the apparent direction of the Moon to point in a significantly different direction than the Sun then the Moon would be pointing in different directions depending on where it is in your field of vision. It does not point in different directions depending on how we look at it. Therefore we can take this "explanation" and toss it in the garbage.

I am not sure where any of that came from, this is not how the moon-tilt illusion is explained.

Anyone familiar with the previous discussions on this knows that this wrong. There are multiple explanations given for this. MetaBunk and VSauce use the perspective explanation, Professor Myers in the Wiki link insists that Astronomers use a celestial sphere. Now you bring in a third explanation involving warped distortion in our vision, as the "official" explanation, without any reference or  support whatsoever.

2085

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 05:10:36 PM »

The string experiment is unable to distinguish whether something is pointing at something else.



From a ground level angle:



We can connect a string between them. The Purple Cone must be pointing at the Sun.

2086

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 04:20:43 AM »

Two pencils intersecting a transparent plane:



Going beneath the plane and looking up at the pencils I see:



I can connect a string! The pencils must be pointing at each other. 

2087

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 03:38:23 AM »

I have tried it. It's insufficient. Here is the section from the Wiki:

Along the same lines as the above, we are given reference to "string experiments" in which the direction of the Moon's illuminated portion is able to be connected to the sun with a string.



Credit: Bobby Shafto

It has been argued that the string experiment shows that the bodies do actually point at each other. An illusion of some type is occurring and the string experiment "breaks the illusion," demonstrating that the illuminated portion of the Moon is actually pointing at the Sun. If it was not pointing at the Sun then it would not be possible to hold a straight piece of string along that path.

As a reply to this, consider the following scenario:

You are laying down on the ground on your back, facing upwards, and at the edges of your vision see the top of a pine tree on one side of your vision, and the top of a cabin on the other. You take out a string and connect them together across your vision. Have you proved that the tree is pointing at the cabin?

If you are laying down on the ground on your back and see the Moon pointing upwards on one side of your vision and see the Sun setting at the horizon on the other, a string connecting the two will no more prove that the Moon is pointing at the Sun than it would prove that a tree is pointing at a cabin. When you lay on your back you can see 190 degrees of space1. Just because an object at one side might be pointing "up" at another object at the other side, it doesn't mean that they are pointing at each other.

When wrapped around the observer, this panoramic view of the moon tilt illusion:



Turns into this:



Art Credit: Todd Lockwood

In the above example both the Moon and airplane are on opposite sides of the Sun near point B. The Sun is on the horizon at point A. The Moon and airplane are not actually pointing at the Sun. The string merely connects them two dimensionally across a 'sphere of vision' exactly like the tree-cabin example.

If the airplane was actually pointing at the Sun in the above example, then when looking at the airplane face on, with the Sun on the horizon to your back, you should see the airplane pointed at you and tilted downwards towards the opposite horizon behind you. The same would also apply for the Moon. If the Moon were pointing at the Sun then when you face the Moon its illumined portion should point downwards at the Sun at the horizon behind you, just as an airplane would. Thus, we see that this assertion that the string experiment demonstrates that an illusion is occurring and that bodies are pointing at each other is erroneous. The string experiment may suggest that object positions and straight line paths behave as if they are curving on a dome of some manner, which may provide us with a clue in deciphering the nature of our world, but it does not demonstrate absolute directions of bodies.

A fish-bowl type simulation of the Moon Tilt Illusion can be seen in University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Moon Phases and the Horizon Diagram (.swf Archive) - "Provides a method of learning the correlation between the phase of the moon, the time of day, and the position of the moon in the sky."



Footnotes

1 "our eyes sit in the front of our head, allowing us to see about 60 percent of world in front of us with both eyes, at the compromise that we can only see at maximum about 190 degrees around us (Block 1969; Wolfe 2006)" – Human Spatial Navigation, 2018, p.73

If we take the last image we see that there is only one path where the string connects to the Sun, by connecting it across the observer's vision.

If you face the Moon dead on where the Moon is in the center of your vison and hold out a string at arms length it will NOT connect to the sun (Red).

It only connects to the sun if you connect it across your vision (Teal).



And going back to the Tree-Cabin example in the Wiki, if you are laying down on the ground and see the top of a pine tree on one side of your vision and the top of a cabin on the other, connecting them together with a string across your sphere of vision does NOT prove that the tree is pointing at the cabin.

2088

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the size of the sun remain the same throughout the day?

« on: February 19, 2021, 03:16:49 AM »

The lights in your example are all different sizes, as would be expected if they were shrinking to perspective with distance.

The lights don't linearly shrink in the example I gave. The last five lights don't shrink as much as much as the first five lights. They simply are not shrinking to perspective to tiny specs as you imagine they should be.

2089

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 03:14:03 AM »

No, they don't. Gravity readings are negative on the mountains - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#Inverse_Mountains

That's only partially true, like areas where mountain peaks are composed of uplifted lithified former seafloor sediments. In these areas, the less dense rocks press down on the denser crustal rocks beneath, making the observed pull due to gravity less.

Other modern and former mountain chains with higher proportions of denser rock display high gravity anomalies. Look at the Andes or the ancient Appalachians, which have a higher gravity than the surrounding intracratonic basins infilled with Paleozoic and younger sea floor sediments.

The highest gravity anomalies tend to occur in areas where dense crust occurs near surface: mid-ocean ridges and along the margins of ocean trenches.

The isostacy wiki page is drastically deficient in quality references and empirical data.

The Wiki actually does provide sources. Whereas you provide no sources at all for your statements.

2090

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 03:07:53 AM »

The string discussion is addressed in the link, which you do not even attempt a response to.

Your "it's an illusion" explanation does not explain anything at all and is an example of your failure to explain this.

2091

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the size of the sun remain the same throughout the day?

« on: February 19, 2021, 02:50:04 AM »

Your explanation failed to explain why lights of various distances in the far field all stay the same size, and was summarily dismissed.

In the far field the lights are the same size:

2092

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 02:42:40 AM »

The wiki on Gravimetry claims that Gravimeters are picking up seismic noise, which is impossible considering most Gravimetry these days is conducted using airplane or satellite mounted devices. How does seismology work, when the detector is not even attached to the ground?

Seismic waves are transmitted into the air as well - https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Airborne_Seismic_Waves

It isn't volcanic, yet, the high density of mass caused by those mountains still gives the expected gravimetry readings despite being seismically inactive!

No, they don't. Gravity readings are negative on the mountains - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#Inverse_Mountains

2093

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the size of the sun remain the same throughout the day?

« on: February 19, 2021, 02:21:42 AM »

Using one of the FE claims about Sun & Moon altitude and size, here's a simulation showing how a 3000 mile high

That's not a simulation of what FE claims to occur.

You know that the explanation is here and do not even attempt to address it: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

2094

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 19, 2021, 02:04:43 AM »

The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at in depth, and is easily accessible - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Although RE claims to have answers for this, those answers really don't work.

2095

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: February 18, 2021, 10:51:11 PM »

What data did you base your statement on and where can we find it?

You want evidence to support the distance across australia? I got my figure(s) from google maps, but the point is that the data you get from google, or indeed any other app, is backed up by thousands of people making journeys every day. At the extreme end of the scale, you have people like this:

https://www.tailoredmedia.com.au/blog/the-4-lessons-i-learned-cycling-across-australia-with-my-son/

If the distance wasn't what it was said to be, then their planning simply wouldn't work, would it? And nor would countless others. And every long journey in Australia done by car would trigger an odd mismatch between the planned distance and the reality recorded on the vehicle's odo. In road haulage particularly, those differences would get noticed very quickly.

Are you suggesting that it is not, in fact, about 4800 km across Australia as I described?

So first you claim to have odometer data, and now you don't have that data after all?

Now you backtrack on that and instead show a link which says that two young people cycled 4800 km in 30 days. Here is another link which says that an elderly grandfather cycled 11,616 km in 30 days.

Doesn't look like you've provided much in the way of solid evidence on this to me.

Also, the shape and size of Australia is different among all of the Flat Earth maps. Which one are you trying to debunk?

2096

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 18, 2021, 10:36:18 PM »

Russia is now defending my rights as an American more than the "American President".

https://ussanews.com/News1/2021/02/17/russia-blasts-biden-regime-for-persecution-of-trump-supporters-political-dissidents:

The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a statement lambasting the United States government under Joe Biden for the “ongoing persecution campaign” taking place “against anybody at all who does not agree with the results of the latest presidential election.”

In the statement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova delivered a scathing assessment of the human rights situation in the United States under President Joe Biden. Zakharova described the ongoing crackdown against Trump loyalists in the United States. She also questioned the “objectivity of the law enforcement agencies” involved in this campaign, noting that they were acting under orders and “in line with the narrative of the current administration who declared the events of January 6, 2021 a riot and everybody who was near the US Congress on that day all but plunderers.”

2097

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: February 18, 2021, 08:57:23 PM »

There are anomalous winds in the southern hemisphere - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis

If you are going to try to use travel times to show evidence for a particular model, you need to do better than provide information from an area known to be anomalous.

I used road journeys in my example Tom. The wind doesn't affect them. And I didn't say 'times', I said 'distances'. As in: 'what people measure using their car odometers', for example.

What data did you base your statement on and where can we find it?

2098

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: February 18, 2021, 06:55:17 PM »

There are anomalous winds in the southern hemisphere - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis

If you are going to try to use travel times to show evidence for a particular model, you need to do better than provide information from an area known to be anomalous.

2099

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: February 18, 2021, 06:46:56 PM »

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-everyone-knows-i-love-kids-better-than-people

2100

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Religious Views of the Enlightenment

« on: February 17, 2021, 08:01:43 PM »

Newton brings in "divine intervention" to explain the failings of his science.

From The Kam Story by Professor H Scott Dumas:

“ At the beginning of the 18th century, Newton famously wrote that the solar system needed occasional divine intervention (presumably a nudge here and there from the hand of God) in order to remain stable.(11) This was interpreted to mean that Newton believed his mathematical model of the solar system—the n body problem—did not have stable solutions. Thus was the gauntlet laid down, and a proof of the stability of the n body problem became one of the great mathematical challenges of the age.

(11) Newton's remarks about divine intervention appear in Query 23 of the 1706 (Latin) edition of Opticks, which became Query 31 of the 1717 (2nd Edition) edition see Quote Q(New) in Appendix E). Similar 'theological' remarks are found in scholia of the 2nd and 3rd editions of Principia, and in at least one of Newton's letters. In a 1715 letter to Caroline, Princess of Wales, Leibniz observed sarcastically that Newton had not only cast the Creator as a clock-maker, and a faulty one, but now as a clock-repairman (see (Klo73), Part XXXIV, pp. 54-55). ”

The University of California San Diego credits Newton with providing the laws of physics for the Solar System:

“ Then came Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who brought the laws of physics to the solar system. Isaac Newton explained why the planets move the way they do, by applying his laws of motion, and the force of gravitation between any two bodies, letting the force decrease with the square of the distance between the two bodies. ”

Further reference here:

P. Kelly, LL. D. in his Metrology; Or, an Exposition of Weights and Measures (1816) comments on p.10:

“ Some philosophers have doubted the perfect equability of the earth's diurnal rotation on its axis; but from the best observations that have been made for 2000 years, in fixed observatories, it is concluded that there is no variation whatever. It is perhaps the only uniform motion of which astronomers are certain. And here it may be worthy of remark, that no natural cause has yet been assigned for the diurnal rotation of the planets. Sir Issac Newton observes, in one of his letters to Dr. Bently, (reviewed in Dr. Johnson's Works, Vol. II. p.332, Murphy's edition) that "the diurnal rotations of the planets cannot be derived from gravity, but must require a divine arm to impress them."

The above question respecting the natural cause of plentary rotation was submitted to the principle Astronomers of France in the summer of 1814, at a Metting of the Board of Longitude. It was introduced by a visitor from England, who wished to learn if any new light had been thrown on the subject, by the great advances made in analytical science and physical astronomy, by some of the members present. They all agreed that no satisfactory solution had yet been given of the phenomenon; and they listened with much attention to the opinion quoted from Sir Issac Newton's Letters, which they had not previously known, and on which the Count Laplace modestly observed -- "Si Netwon n'a pas pu l'exfliquer ce n'est pas a nous d'y pretendre." (Translated: If Netwon could not explain it, it is not up to us to claim it.) ”