[Tom Bishop]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

[inquisitive]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

Unfortunately your use of the word 'perspective' does not agree the accepted meaning.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ... "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

[Rekt]

The distance to the moon is solidly known. If you have a steady enough aim (Not your hand, some kind of system), a laser, a receiver, and good timing software for it, you can calculate using the speed of light as a known constant and the return time to get the distance. We have done this using the Lunar Rangefinding Receivers, left by the Apollo astronauts.

[model 29]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

  Why would it not?  How would it actually change?

[Tom Bishop]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

  Why would it not?  How would it actually change?

We already went over that in this thread. There is no evidence for those Ancient Greek ideas of how perspective works at large scales.

[Curious Squirrel]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

  Why would it not?  How would it actually change?

We already went over that in this thread. There is no evidence for those Ancient Greek ideas of how perspective works at large scales.

Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

[Tom Bishop]

Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.

[Curious Squirrel]

Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.

But the moon shouldn't shift by more than a few degrees, which it does. Unless you're talking about something other than what I'm familiar with. I'll admit I have no idea what you're meaning or getting at with those other two statements though. But perhaps I should look into this and try and figure out what you're talking about and make another thread so this one doesn't get too far off topic. Because what you're saying looks like complete nonsense based on what I currently know.

[geckothegeek]

Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.

But the moon shouldn't shift by more than a few degrees, which it does. Unless you're talking about something other than what I'm familiar with. I'll admit I have no idea what you're meaning or getting at with those other two statements though. But perhaps I should look into this and try and figure out what you're talking about and make another thread so this one doesn't get too far off topic. Because what you're saying looks like complete nonsense based on what I currently know.

I thought I was the only person having trouble with understanding Tom Bishop. Guess I'm not alone.

[Curious Squirrel]

Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.

But the moon shouldn't shift by more than a few degrees, which it does. Unless you're talking about something other than what I'm familiar with. I'll admit I have no idea what you're meaning or getting at with those other two statements though. But perhaps I should look into this and try and figure out what you're talking about and make another thread so this one doesn't get too far off topic. Because what you're saying looks like complete nonsense based on what I currently know.

I thought I was the only person having trouble with understanding Tom Bishop. Guess I'm not alone.

Most of what he has to say about his 'perspective theory' issues I have a hard time understanding. He always gets really vague, and begins to talk about things that make no sense. Although thinking about it I believe the stars comment makes sense if you assume the Earth is flat and - as he puts it - perspective converges at infinity. But there's no issues with that on a RE because the stars rotate out of view because of the turning of the planet. Hmm, I wonder if this can or should be applied to other things to explain what he's talking about. Although it doesn't explain what he means by the Saturn thing.

[TomInAustin]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

[Tom Bishop]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

Please back up your ideas for how perspective works at that scale with an example of where we have seen distant objects turn to perspective like that.

[inquisitive]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

Please back up your ideas for how perspective works at that scale with an example of where we have seen distant objects turn to perspective like that.

'objects turn to perspective' is a meaningless set of words.

[TomInAustin]

You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

Please back up your ideas for how perspective works at that scale with an example of where we have seen distant objects turn to perspective like that.

Again you try to twist the point.  Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle.   If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on.  You are not going to see their back.  I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet.  As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away.  It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.

[Tom Bishop]

Again you try to twist the point.  Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle.   If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on.  You are not going to see their back.  I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet.  As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away.  It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.

Your evidence is based on a thought experiment, not what actually happens at large distances.

[TomInAustin]

Again you try to twist the point.  Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle.   If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on.  You are not going to see their back.  I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet.  As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away.  It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.

Your evidence is based on a thought experiment, not what actually happens at large distances.

No, it's based on reality.  You can't read a billboard from the back or see the other side of a sphere no matter how bad you want it to be so.   It's proven that the moon is much further than 3000 miles.  Angles do not lie, the math does not lie. 

[TomInAustin]

Perfect proof using Tom's favorite Rubix cube model of a 32x32 mile cube at 3000 miles

Shots were slightly south of center line to show the 3d geometry

Figur d1 shows 3000-mile geometry
Figure d2 shows that the east face is Light blue and dark blue, the bottom is black and white, and the front face of light and dark green
Figure d3 shows the west face is light pink and dark pink, the bottom is black and white, and the front face of light and dark green
Figure d4 shows that a viewer east of the center line would see the bottom black and white, the east blue face and the front green face
Figure d5 shows that a viewer west of the center line would see the bottom black and white, the west pink face and the front green face
Figure d6 shows that a viewer on the center line would see the bottom black and white and the front green face

This proves what we already knew, you can never see more than three sides of a cube and 3000 miles is not nearly far enough away for everyone to see the same view of a cube or the moon.

Obviously, distance is not relevant.  This works at 3 microns, 3 mm, 3 inches, 3 miles, 3000 miles.   Tom would have us believe in some magic light bending where all my viewers saw the same thing.  Not going to happen. 

Case closed.

[TomInAustin]

Attached is the moon cube file.  Get Sketchup, it's a great program.  This file will make you smile when you rotate around views and see how impossible it is to have a moon 3000 miles away and still have everyone see the same face.

[Tom Bishop]

You may as well point us to Aristotle's 2000 year old book which contains his perspective theory illustrations; which is right next to his book which tells us that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

[geckothegeek]

Many of the flat earth ideas would be true IF the earth WAS flat.
But the earth IS NOT flat.