#### ChrisTP

• 926
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2020, 12:00:03 PM »
Well, even though light 'wibbles' and bends slightly it's a bit different from the sweeping, large arcs of curvature that would be needed for the earth the be flat. That's not to say that it isn't the case either, but we've seen light being more straight than bent. Although this is a subject I tend not to consider proof of 'anything' since, obviously no matter if light is straight, wibbling or massively curves the end result is you seeing the thing on the other end of the light so you'd really have to prove 'how' light is bending, not 'if' it is.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2020, 12:40:03 PM »
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.

Given the DATA of the observation, and without any reference to the behaviour of light, we can form the geometry;

Observation height 100m
Ship height 46m or so.
Distance to ship - between 14 and 22km, determined by it passing between two islands of known distance.

This yields a geometrical figure. The presumed flat plane of the sea, continued to a point under the observation point, forms a horizontal base of between 14 and 22km. A vertical at each end, one of 100m, one of 46m, and a fourth, angled side connecting the tops of the verticals.

Doesn't matter if light is bending or not, this is the physical geometry of the situation, IF we presume the lands and seas to be flat, and with the exception of the topography of the land that places the observer 100m above sea level.

This figure can be split into a rectangle and a triangle, and we can apply Pythagorean geometry to the triangle. See my diagram above.  This gives us angle B.  With angle B and the height of the observer, we can determine where the continuation of the hypotenuse of that triangle leads, and where it should meet the continuation of that flat base beyond the 46m side, IF the base is flat. This forms a triangle with side a being the observer height, side b the base formed by the (presumed) flat sea on which the ship sails, and a hypotenuse connecting observer to the base.

The continuation of that angle line SHOULD meet the flat base line somewhere between 25 and 39.29km away from the observer, according to simple geometry. It CANNOT miss the base.

If we could draw a rope or wire out from the observation point, not have it sag, bend, or wave in the wind, connect it to the top of the ship, and extend it in a straight continuation line onward past the ship, it would meet a presumed flat sea between 25 and 39.29km away.       Regardless of how light behaves.

Agree?

I'll ask the same question I asked on YouTube, but which all the FEers over there avoided answering; "What do you SEE behind and beyond the top of the cranes on the ship? Sea? Sky? Something else?"

All the distances, heights and calculations are referenced in detail in my YouTube video on the observation. I know this has been removed once already for "spamming the forums", but since it's all written out there already, I am disinclined to retype it all here.

If mods want to remove it, then just say so, and I'll edit it out of this post, but it CONTAINS THE DATA pertinent to this discussion.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 01:02:26 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2020, 03:00:47 PM »
I watched Patrick Moore explain that Jodrell could not track Apollo 11 .

Where did you watch this?

Have a look at this site    http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/jodrell/jodrole2.htm

Interesting info in there .

Yup, nothing to confirm that JB did NOT track Apollo, just pages that deal with the tracking of Soviet craft...

I've seen a quote from head of nasa radio transmission at that time , can't recall his name , who admitted that it was possible that all Apollo radio transmission data could have been faked .

Should be really easy to find it again, then. Since you know he was "head of radio transmission"

Here http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/history/tracking/part2.html

That's from Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics , Department for Physics and Astronomy .

They did not track Apollo 11 .

Interesting how they were bouncing data around by balloon satellite in the 60's .

The nonsense that Jodrell tracked apollo  is a recent addition to space race mythology.

BBC article from 2009 . See the beginning of the myth . http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8150000/8150469.stm

Read this paragraph " However, while all eyes were on Armstrong and the Apollo 11 mission, astronomers at Jodrell Bank were busy monitoring the movements of a different spacecraft orbiting the Moon on the same day."

#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2020, 03:24:36 PM »
"That's from Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics , Department for Physics and Astronomy"

... and it says at the top of the page it's merely a duplicate of what you posted earlier, duplicated with that Swedish guy's permission.

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

"In July 1969, the Jodrell Bank Observatory team team, led by the observatory Director Sir Bernard Lovell, used telescopes at the Cheshire site including the Lovell Telescope and the 50ft telescope (now the 42ft telescope) to simultaneously monitor signals from the Apollo 11 Eagle lander and the Russian unmanned module Luna 15 spacecraft, both on lunar missions."

"...On July 20 1969, the scientists at Jodrell Bank were simultaneously observing two dramatic events. The Lovell Telescope, their largest, was receiving signals from the Soviet Luna-15 probe, which was supposed to land just hours after the Apollo 11 landing...

Also ...

"...Meanwhile, even as Luna-15 was preparing to land on the moon, the Mark-II telescope, another large radio telescope on the grounds of Jodrell Bank, was tracking and receiving transmissions from Apollo-11. Audio and data from the mission was being demodulated, and although the facility didn’t have the equipment necessary to demodulate and display the video from Apollo-11, they were able to watch the transmissions via the BBC’s coverage of the events on broadcast television..."
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 03:33:12 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12837
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2020, 05:05:18 PM »
Agree?
Of course not. The shape you'd draw to illustrate the situation strictly relies on the behaviour of light. You chose a scenario in which light travels in a straight line. Substantiate your assumption, keeping in mind that you have prior knowledge of its falsity.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2020, 05:32:12 PM »
The shape you'd draw to illustrate the situation strictly relies on the behaviour of light.

No, it does not.

If I stood on the observation point in the middle of the night, with no Moon, and the ship was in the same place it was when I took the photograph, the geometry of the situation would be exactly the same.

No?

We presume the seas to be flat. Don't need light to do that. We draw verticals at each end of the scene, one under the observation point, one under the top of the ship. Don't need light. We connect the tops of the verticals. We can do that in the dark.

No?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### Stagiri

• 186
• You can call me Peter
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2020, 06:03:18 PM »
.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.

Generally speaking, what would be the reason for light to not travel in a straight line?
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

#### IronHorse

• 55
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2020, 06:28:27 PM »
The only way in which the path of a light ray can be bent is by the process of refraction.  The amount of refraction (deviation from its original path) is a function of both the wavelength of light involved and the difference in densities of the mediums involved. This gives us a ratio known as the refractive index.

Note that even refraction does not cause a light ray to follow a curved path (as seems to be implied by the diagrams of FE electromagnetic acceleration) but rather it changes instantaneously the direction of an otherwise straight path.

As I pointed out earlier the atmosphere causes a slight refraction effect because air is denser than the vacuum of space beyond and the density of the atmosphere decreases with height above the surface.  I also mentioned how this refraction effect is very small compared to the amount of bending that the FE Wiki seems imply takes place as per

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Rather it is in the order of arc minutes which would be barely noticeable to the naked eye.  Here's a graph to show how the amount of refraction (in arc minutes) varies with altitude in degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#/media/File:BennettAtmRefractVsAlt.png

Videos have been posted before by FE'ers claiming to provide evidence the 'bending' of light such as this one

But of course that is not the light bending but an example of light undergoing total internal reflection within the flow of water coming out of the bottle.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 06:38:42 PM by IronHorse »

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 4218
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2020, 10:07:12 PM »
You obviously weren't around at the times of the Apollo missions .Jodrell bank were not tracking Apollo 11. Nasa alone tracked their craft using their Aussie tracking facility
Well, you're right, I wasn't born. But I don't see how that's relevant. They were tracking Apollo 11, according to their own website:

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

Quote
From the initial operation of the Lovell Telescope, the telescope had become entwined with the “Space Race”, tracking spacecraft operated by both the Russians and Americans beginning with the world’s first artificial satellite Sputnik 1 in October 1957. In July 1969, the Jodrell Bank Observatory team team, led by the observatory Director Sir Bernard Lovell, used telescopes at the Cheshire site including the Lovell Telescope and the 50ft telescope (now the 42ft telescope) to simultaneously monitor signals from the Apollo 11 Eagle lander and the Russian unmanned module Luna 15 spacecraft both on lunar missions.

Signals intercepted (see below) by the 50ft telescope showed the signals received when Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Eagle lander as well as the moment when the Eagle lander module touched down on the surface of the moon.

If you can find the quote from Patrick Moore then I'll have a look, but a vague memory if you saying he said a thing is not very satisfactory.
I'm not sure what your source adds, it speaks about Jodrell tracking numerous craft which were headed to the moon in the space race.

Quote
I've seen a quote from head of nasa radio transmission at that time , can't recall his name , who admitted that it was possible that all Apollo radio transmission data could have been faked .

OK, then provide the source. Just saying "I saw a quote from someone who said a thing" doesn't really help the discussion.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12837
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2020, 11:08:07 PM »
No?
No.

We connect the tops of the verticals. We can do that in the dark.
Okay. If you do not assume that light travels in a straight line, then connecting the vertices with a straight line is arbitrary, and requires substantiation. You could connect them with any curve of your choosing, and it would be entirely as meaningful. Of course, you were discussing what we can see, so the meaning of your line is somewhat obvious. But that in turn brings us back to the assumption you know to be false.

But I'll humour you. Explain the significance and meaning of the function you chose to connect the two points while not assuming that light travels in a straight line.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 11:16:18 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #50 on: June 07, 2020, 07:43:52 AM »
"That's from Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics , Department for Physics and Astronomy"

... and it says at the top of the page it's merely a duplicate of what you posted earlier, duplicated with that Swedish guy's permission.

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

"In July 1969, the Jodrell Bank Observatory team team, led by the observatory Director Sir Bernard Lovell, used telescopes at the Cheshire site including the Lovell Telescope and the 50ft telescope (now the 42ft telescope) to simultaneously monitor signals from the Apollo 11 Eagle lander and the Russian unmanned module Luna 15 spacecraft, both on lunar missions."

"...On July 20 1969, the scientists at Jodrell Bank were simultaneously observing two dramatic events. The Lovell Telescope, their largest, was receiving signals from the Soviet Luna-15 probe, which was supposed to land just hours after the Apollo 11 landing...

Also ...

"...Meanwhile, even as Luna-15 was preparing to land on the moon, the Mark-II telescope, another large radio telescope on the grounds of Jodrell Bank, was tracking and receiving transmissions from Apollo-11. Audio and data from the mission was being demodulated, and although the facility didn’t have the equipment necessary to demodulate and display the video from Apollo-11, they were able to watch the transmissions via the BBC’s coverage of the events on broadcast television..."

It's from 2016 . Listen to what they say from the beginning . Head of jodrell bank O'Brien was 5 year old at the time . Comedian O'brien says "you found this" - "yes it's one of our prize plums" so quickly stifles debate on where it came from  . Garbled description of what it was supposedly tracking . Whatever it was musta been bouncing up and down on the moon and the lander landed in mid air. Lame explanation of " we just got things adjusted properly in time to track the landing  " . Fkn hilarious , and complete bollox .

Jodrell Bank ,for at least 30 yrs, acknowledged that it did not track the eagle . And now it did?

The whole thing is complete fiction - so easy to " fly me to the moon " in the 60's . Technology advances apart from wocket science that retreats. Good job the balloon satellites haven't regressed .

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 4218
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2020, 08:49:01 AM »
It's from 2016 . Listen to what they say from the beginning . Head of jodrell bank O'Brien was 5 year old at the time . Comedian O'brien says "you found this" - "yes it's one of our prize plums" so quickly stifles debate on where it came from

And this article has an interview from one of the engineers who did the tracking

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181

Your arguments are a mixture of claims about remembered statements you provide no source for, arguments from incredulity and flat out denial.

The one source you did provide does confirm that they were tracking craft going to the moon.

No, it wasn’t easy in the 60s, they threw a LOT of money at it. As public interest waned they no longer had the budget to do it - the last 2 Apollo missions were cancelled because of that.

Rocket technology hasn’t failed to advance but budgets have been significantly cut since the space race.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2020, 09:04:07 AM »
Okay. If you do not assume that light travels in a straight line, then connecting the vertices with a straight line is arbitrary, and requires substantiation.

No, it's not a case of me "not assum(ing)" that light travels in straight lines, nor a case of an arbitrary choice.

We're considering the geometry of the situation with the presumption that the sea and lands, excluding local topography, are flat. If they have any curve at all, they are Not Flat. So to consider the geometry on the basis that they are flat, we have to consider straight lines.

The plane of the sea is therefore presumed to be flat, a straight line. The two verticals at each end are also considered to be straight lines. There's no reason to draw these as curves. We now have three sides of a geometric figure, all straight.

There's no reason to draw a curve for the fourth side of the figure unless someone has some basis for what type or extent of curve to use. It's not an "arbitrary" choice to select a straight line to connect two points at all. It's completion of a geometric figure which already has three straight sides.

You could connect them with any curve of your choosing, and it would be entirely as meaningful.

I could, but there's no reason to, until there's a sound basis to determine what the curve should look like. Until then, I connect the two points concerned with a straight line to form a geometric shape. I can then consider the geometric relationship between observer and ship, since the angles of the geometric shape can be determined with simple Pythagorean theory.

Of course, you were discussing what we can see, so the meaning of your line is somewhat obvious. But that in turn brings us back to the assumption you know to be false. But I'll humour you. Explain the significance and meaning of the function you chose to connect the two points while not assuming that light travels in a straight line.

It's the shortest path between the two points. There's no reason to SELECT a curve without any basis to determine what the curve should be. Without that basis, I draw a straight line between the points to determine the geometric relation between them.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12837
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2020, 09:47:09 AM »
Okay, so you chose the curve because it's the shortest (in your favourite geometry, at least). However, you are not assuming that light travels in a straight line.

So: What is the significance of the line you drew? What is it supposed to illustrate? Previously, you said that it was a sightline, but it clearly can't be that since that wouldn't be straight.

So, given that you are not assuming light to be travelling in straight lines, what is the meaning of that line? What does it represent in the real world? What "simple observation" does it enable?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 09:48:48 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #54 on: June 07, 2020, 11:01:43 AM »
Okay, so you chose the curve because it's the shortest (in your favourite geometry, at least). However, you are not assuming that light travels in a straight line.

Whether it does or not does not affect the geometry of the objects in the scene. The relationship between them would still be the same whether they were lit or not. Mid-day or midnight, their sizes and distances would not change

So: What is the significance of the line you drew? What is it supposed to illustrate?

It defines the geometric relationship between the observer point and the top of the ship, yielding the downward angle of the line being considered.

Previously, you said that it was a sightline, but it clearly can't be that since that wouldn't be straight.

Why not? You seem to unable or unwilling to tell us what form it would follow, if it were not straight. So for the time being, it's reasonable to take it as straight, until you can come up with a valid other form for it.

So, given that you are not assuming light to be travelling in straight lines, what is the meaning of that line? What does it represent in the real world? What "simple observation" does it enable?

I'm considering the geometry without reference to light travel. That is not the same as "not assuming light to be travelling in straight lines". The "meaning" of the line is to establish the relationship of the line to the horizontal or vertical.

The "real world" is depicted in the photo. The exercise is to presume the sea to be flat and consider the geometry of the situation, were that to be the case, to see if that presumed flatness fits in with the photo.

Again; what do you SEE behind and beyond the top of the ship's cranes in the photo? Sea? Sky? Something else?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### Bikini Polaris

• 197
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #55 on: June 07, 2020, 11:17:01 AM »
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?

Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.

No wait, "flatness" is not a shape. FEs do no tell us the whole shape of the rock we live upon. Let's compare apples with apples, we have a sphere floating in space on one side, and what do we have on the other side? The unknownable unknown+a flat surface? But now Tom please don't tell me that Occam's razor states that "not knowing" is simpler than knowing.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #56 on: June 07, 2020, 02:26:37 PM »
It's from 2016 . Listen to what they say from the beginning . Head of jodrell bank O'Brien was 5 year old at the time . Comedian O'brien says "you found this" - "yes it's one of our prize plums" so quickly stifles debate on where it came from

And this article has an interview from one of the engineers who did the tracking

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181

Your arguments are a mixture of claims about remembered statements you provide no source for, arguments from incredulity and flat out denial.

The one source you did provide does confirm that they were tracking craft going to the moon.

No, it wasn’t easy in the 60s, they threw a LOT of money at it. As public interest waned they no longer had the budget to do it - the last 2 Apollo missions were cancelled because of that.

Rocket technology hasn’t failed to advance but budgets have been significantly cut since the space race.

From 1968 , apollo 8 mission 7 months before apollo 11 mission.

This is sir Bernard Lovell explaining why none of the dishes at Jodrell Bank are capable of tracking a space mission  Listen as he explains what they actually do - they gather data and deduce velocities and accelerations from phase shift in signals , doppler shift .

Fair enough but doppler effects are caused by several effects including reflection of signal . Echo 11 balloon satellite perhaps .

He states that this method applies to all deep space probes. Has to be that way , saves having to solve n body problems inherent in the globe model .

Just bounce signals of a balloon satellite and you have a space probe . Cynical I know but easy way of creating the whole myth of outa space .

#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #57 on: June 07, 2020, 03:39:54 PM »
VID

From 1968 , apollo 8 mission 7 months before apollo 11 mission.

This is sir Bernard Lovell explaining why none of the dishes at Jodrell Bank are capable of tracking a space mission  Listen as he explains what they actually do - they gather data and deduce velocities and accelerations from phase shift in signals , doppler shift .

Fair enough but doppler effects are caused by several effects including reflection of signal . Echo 11 balloon satellite perhaps .

He states that this method applies to all deep space probes. Has to be that way, saves having to solve n body problems inherent in the globe model .

Just bounce signals of a balloon satellite and you have a space probe . Cynical I know but easy way of creating the whole myth of outa space .

Is there a reason that you're not posting the conversation verbatim?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 4218
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #58 on: June 08, 2020, 08:26:27 AM »
This is sir Bernard Lovell explaining why none of the dishes at Jodrell Bank are capable of tracking a space mission  Listen as he explains what they actually do - they gather data and deduce velocities and accelerations from phase shift in signals , doppler shift .

That's a strange sentence. You start by making a claim that Jodrell Bank weren't capable of tracking the missions and then you go on to explain exactly how they did.
I don't know what a balloon satellite is or how you'd make one follow the path which the Apollo missions took. But Lovell also explains in that video about the delay in getting the signal back because of the distances involved. That wouldn't happen with a balloon satellite which, by definition, must be in the atmosphere and therefore relatively close.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12837
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #59 on: June 08, 2020, 09:18:21 AM »
Whether it does or not does not affect the geometry of the objects in the scene.
You claimed that this was an observation, and not a piece of maths homework. Don't dither and delay by rambling about "the geometry" - specify what it is that you think can be observed, keeping in mind that the line you drew cannot be the sightline if you do not assume light to travel in a straight line.

So for the time being, it's reasonable to take it as straight
You're contradicting yourself. You say that you're not assuming light to travel in a straight line, and that you are assuming it. Please pick one and stick to it. If it's the latter, I refer you to my very first post on this subject pointing out your blatant dishonesty. If it's the former, then your diagram is not representative of what's seen in the photo, since it makes an assumption about optics that you know to be false.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice