Recent Posts

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Last post by 3DGeek on Today at 09:55:46 PM »
Let's make it even simpler, so even Tom's limited understanding of geometry can withstand:

The top part of the diagram shows our trusty pinhole camera positioned towards the horizon at "sunset" - and a few thousand miles away we have a place where it's noon right now - so the sun is vertically overhead - and some fairly large distance above the ground.   The camera takes an inverted photo of the sunset.

The bottom part of the diagram simplifies things and adds labels...we can talk about these two triangles being "similar" because angle 'a' equals angle 'b' - we have right angles in both triangles and the third angle is therefore (90-a) and (90-b) - so the two triangles are similar by the "AAA" rule.   We can calculate the angle 'a' (it comes out to around 30 degrees with FET data) - so we know 'b' - and using that and the size of the camera, we can calculate Himage that way.   There are any number of ways to do this.

But we don't need to do any of that to prove that the world isn't flat...we can just use our eyes.

So...if the orange light ray and the green light ray are straight lines.   How can the image of the sun be on top of the image of the horizon?

Forget math, geometry, similar triangles, perspective...ignore all possible other confusions.


(Oh!  Wait!  I know..."Check the Wiki" - right?)

The only possibility is that the light from the sun enters the pinhole parallel to the light from the horizon.  The light simply cannot be travelling in a straight line.

So EITHER the world is flat or light bends around curves for reasons that are evidently a complete mystery to FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

Now, Tom is on record as saying that he believes that light travels in straight lines - I quoted him directly at the top of this thread.

I think he now has to admit that he's made a mistake there...and we're back to the super-hokey "Electromagnetic Accelerator" idea.  (Which, I'm sure he knows we can make mincemeat of).

The interesting news here is that he can't flim-flam his way out of it - this is FAR too simple an argument.  So (I believe) we finally force him to shift his position on something.  It's a small step.  There will be more things - but this would be a start.

I shooting fish in a barrel fun?  Not really - but it's less fun for the fish.


If the camera is seeing the sunset why is the sun high in the sky? By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset. An observer with a camera seeing the sunset will see the sun at the horizon, not high in the sky.

The sun is where you FE'ers tell us it is.  Roughly 6,000 miles away - and 3,000 miles vertically above some distant place where the time is still noon.

Remember - you AREN'T telling us that the sun literally lowers to the ground and leaves a gigantic 30 mile scorch-mark on the dirt...right?   (Pretty sure that's not what you're saying).

You said: "By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset." - but you don't literally mean that...right? (If you do, then we have that giant scorch mark!)  You must mean something like: "It appears, to the human eye, as if the sun was at the horizon at sunset"...which is the point that we RE'ers cannot understand.

If it only "appears" that the sun is at the horizon - but "really" it's 3,000 miles above some far distant place where it's noon right now.   Is that a correct statement?

So...we're back to asking you "How is it possible for light to travel in a straight line from the sun, through the pinhole (or through your iris...same deal) and hit the film at the back of the camera (or your retina...same deal) at the same exact spot as the horizon line.
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat Earth and God
« Last post by Dither on Today at 09:46:30 PM »
Does a person have to believe in God in order to believe that the Earth is flat?

No, but some Atheists have become Agnostics after making the switch.

In other words FET lends itself to a Creator myth, and it can magnify your religious convictions.
You bring whatever you have to the table, and if you have nothing, you'll probably look for something.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Homemade footage of curvature of the earth
« Last post by 3DGeek on Today at 09:45:30 PM »
LOVE how the sound becomes inaudible as it leaves the bulk of the atmosphere.

Oh - cool!  I had turned the sound down while it was playing...neato!
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why do stars change on FE
« Last post by devils advocate on Today at 09:42:26 PM »


Does the bipolar model account for being able to look south from 3 continents and see the same stars?


Can the bipolar model be used as an answer to all accepted astronomical knowledge and as a one size fits all response to billions of people's observations of the skies above them? So now when it becomes clear FE can't survive scrutiny of the night sky FE "move the stars" closer to earth! I imagine any request of evidence that stars are not where astronomical experts say they would be ignored and simply countered with "where's your evidence".

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Last post by 3DGeek on Today at 09:42:03 PM »
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?

It can put 3 inch tall railroad tracks at your 5'8" eye level. What do you think?
Yes or no Tom.

Does perspective adjust the actual physical location of objects in the real world?

The problem we have here is that Tom can proudly announce "PERSPECTIVE DID IT!" without ever demonstrating how or why his weird take on perspective actually happens.

Real world perspective (irrespective of flat or round earth models) is a simple consequence of the way eyes, cameras and such like function...hence the pinhole camera analogy.

We can (and DO) routinely use computer graphics to overlay the real world.  It's called "augmented reality".   I've done a lot of work in that area as a part of my job.

Our computer graphics have to line up PERFECTLY with the real world, or the fakery will be obvious.   So it follows that whatever laws of perspective we use must be an excellent match for the real world.

The equation (which I handily derived for you from first principle in the Pinhole camera thread) is super-simple:

   height-on-screen = constant x real-world-height / distance-from-camera-to-object

The constant is calculated from the size of the camera and of the screen.

The proof of this is simple geometry - known since Euclid - the demonstration of it's efficacy is that computer graphics generate the right images - and with augmented reality, any mismatch between the math and reality would be very obvious...and it's not.

But Tom cannot grasp this...I can't see why - the concept is SO simple.

The video he so often presents is bullshit for a couple of very good reasons - so I've started a new thread to debunk THAT.
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Verses about "sky dome" in quran
« Last post by Dither on Today at 09:37:29 PM »
By the sky which returns

I miss Inky  :'(

There are stronger cases for the sky dome in more ancient literature.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun
« Last post by 3DGeek on Today at 09:25:59 PM »
While our OP *really* needs to read the Wiki because it does indeed provide explanations for maybe 75% of the FE'ers claims...I would be remiss in pointing out that even by FE standards, it's HORRIBLY out of date.

Many of the discussions here have shown the the "official" position of differs substantially from what the Wiki says it is.
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« Last post by Dither on Today at 09:24:40 PM »
Man there's some good movies out at the moment.
IT was fantastic, Toms new one looks great (American Made)

I remember in the seventies my mother returning from seeing "The Exorcist"   
We were only young, but she had nightmares for weeks afterwards.
She liked horror movies too, but that one nailed her.

So has anyone caught "Mother" yet? 
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on Today at 09:11:10 PM »
Bad news for you. We were both reading the image wrong. I blame it on the small size of image. The image on the left is for Nambia, where the signal was not detected. If you notice, both time windows on the left are using dotted lines indicating a non-observed signal. The observed time is on the right and matches your speed estimates. This makes sense given the main topic of that paper was performance differences of the detection network during daylight and nighttime hours.
Fucking finally. It only took you three pages of pointing out that your hypothesis was inconsistent with the data, and that you were indeed presenting a hypothesis that was different from that of the researchers. But hey, you're one step ahead of most RE'ers in that you've at least admitted it... in a roundabout way, but hey-ho., if you'll agree that we misread the image, can we talk about that pesky double pulse?
Well, no. I said I wouldn't attempt it without sufficient data, and your insistence on doing anything else is unlikely to affect me. You may have noticed that I don't find you very persuasive. Besides, I don't even know what you want to talk about. As everyone here already agreed, we'd need to see the timing of at least three pulses to differentiate between RET and FET, and even then the results would be far from conclusive.
Flat Earth Debate / Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Last post by 3DGeek on Today at 09:00:51 PM »
I'm not sure what the best title for this subject I went with "altered perspective".

Tom keeps on waving this video at us - so this thread is an effort to explain (and debunk) that video.

The error it makes is to double-count the "perspective" effect.

I'm going to talk at the video at specific time points into it - so I suggest you open a second browser window with the video running in it and pause at the times I indicate to read my comments:

So listen through to around 1:50 and hit Pause.

The picture he's looking at shows that the further away the object gets, the smaller the angle to the ground it gets.  This is reasonable - light travels in straight lines.  If we extended the diagram off to the right with more and more equally spaced suns, the angle would get smaller and smaller - right?

At a billion miles, the angle would be a tiny fraction of a degree - at a trillion miles, still smaller - and at INFINITY the angle would be ZERO...or as close to zero as matters (the math term is "Infinitesimal" - one divided by infinity - not strictly zero - but essentially that).

This IS the standard law of perspective.   The further two parallel train tracks lead away from you, the narrower the perceived angle between them.  But even at a billion miles, they don't quite meet.  Only infinitely far from the eye to those train tracks come together.

OK - un-pause the video...stop it again at 2:07 or so.

He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".

But that's not the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero.   If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?

OK - un-pause again...stop again at 2:43.

So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

At 2:43, he's just added some suns moving downwards - but the sun isn't moving downwards in the real world - only in the eye of the viewer.   The original diagram is showing the path of the actual photons...the rays of light traveling from the sun to the viewer.

OK - so onwards to a picture of a wall...pause again at 3:27.

He's overlaid a side-on diagram onto a sloping wall...WTF?  How does that prove anything?  You can't just take a 2D side-on diagram and paste it onto a photograph taken at some random angle and demand that they line up perfectly!  What kind of a bullshit claim is *THAT*?

If he had blown up the diagram until it was about 20' long and 10' high, so the stick-figure's eye is level with the camera that took the photo - and pasted the giant diagram onto the both the diagram and the wall are at the same orientation...and THEN taken the photo...guess what would have happened?

Well...let's try that shall we?   It takes a bit of fancy 3D graphics work (that's what I do for a living)...but the result is this:

It's hard to reproduce the exact camera angle of the original photo - and the low-res diagram has blurred out horribly because it has to be stretched to match the perspective in the photo - but you can see that the stickman's eyeline matches the eyeline in the photo - and the sun gets closer to the horizon in the same way that the strips on the wall do.

It's not perfect...but you should be able to see what I mean.

So if you could match the camera angles in the diagram and the wall...the result would be perfect...and of course if you do the reverse - and photograph the wall side-on and lay it on top of the diagram, that would be perfect too.

So this stage in his "proof" doesn't prove a darned thing - other than that the guy who made the video is clueless.

Watch again until 3:30.

Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?

Look again at the original picture of that wall:

Notice that behind the horizontal strip, there are a bunch of vertical supports, which are clearly equally spaced by whoever hung that wall?   This is VERY convenient for our proof.  (Thanks video guy!)

Suppose I put a red dot over the intersection of each vertical support and the "eye line".

And above each one, I draw green dots for the position of the sun as 1pm, 2pm, 3pm, 4pm, 5pm and 6pm...just like he tried to do.  I'm allowing the sun to move the distance between two support strips every hour - which (in the real world) is a constant speed:

What we see is that FAR from reaching the "horizon" at 6pm, the effect of perspective is shortening the *visual* distance between the consecutive sun although the sun is indeed lowering in the sky - it'll never reach it because it's moving smaller and smaller distances with each hour that passes. 

Another way to think about that is that perspective works in both the "X" and "Y" directions...but it also works in "Z":

Equally spaced pillars getting closer together as they get shorter.  The number of pillars needed before the height of the building is zero has to be infinite because every time you halve the height of the building, you double the number of columns you need:

This is WHY the FE sun can never set.

Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:

The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".

The problem is that he's guilty of PRECISELY the thing that he falsely accuses the original diagram of.  He's using a 2D representation fo the sun on a 3D photograph of a real world thing.

You simply can't do that.

You can prove your point with a 2D diagram - or you can prove it with a 3D photographic visualization - but the instant you mix the two - you screwed up.

So the video is at best misleading.   Clearly the guy who made it DOESN'T understand the first thing about how perspective works.

OK - watch again until 4:50.

Notice how at around 4:50 he cheats and adds more lines at the top of the screen than there really are...naughty!  And carefully STOPS drawing the lines at the bottom of the screen when they are in danger of revealing his lies.  Misleading!  Those lines at the top of the screen that are almost vertical...those don't happen in the real world do they?

So the video whitters on and at 5:25, he's back with his incorrect diagram of the sun's motion.

And out at 5:46, he again accuses someone of using non perspective lines on a perspective drawing - while, ironically, his own screwup of PRECISELY THAT is in the background!  Love it!

This explanation gets to crazy levels of insanity by 6:36 in the video as he overlays his 2D side-view drawing onto a perspective drawing and tries to extract information from that!

So...RE-BUNKED!  (is that even a word?)