### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - Nirmala

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 11, 2017, 10:21:14 PM »
Very clever way to show the effect of putting the image into three dimensions!

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"
« on: May 30, 2017, 07:58:59 PM »
When I measure the second and fourth lights on the left side of the image, there is a roughly 50% reduction in size of the image.

When I measure the last visible light on the right side and also the light two lights closer, there is roughly a 50% reduction in size of the image.

So the same amount of reduction occurs in a row of three streetlights that are closer as in a row of three streetlights that are further away.

There is no gradual change in the amount of reduction suggesting that the more distant lights get smaller at a slower rate.

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"
« on: May 30, 2017, 07:39:30 PM »
You know Tom, it would help your case if you posted something that was actually true. If you followed my suggestion and blew the picture up to 400%, and then measured the lights with a ruler, you would have quickly discovered that the the final 7 or so lights are not similar in size. In fact, they decrease consistently as they get further away.

The shrinking is not consistent, and appears to slow significantly when compared to the closest lights.

Quote
You suggestion that the closer lights are somehow angled at the viewer is ridiculous. Why would someone install a series of streetlights at different angles? And why would they angle some of them to effectively blind someone driving down the street?

Is a streetlight directly overhead of you pointing at you with the same angle as a streetlight at the eye level horizon? No, it is not.

Quote
As for the closer lights being physically bigger than their "projection", this is also ridiculous. The first light in the series is almost as big as the woman walking beneath it. Have you ever seen a 4 foot diameter lightbulb on a regular streetlight? The reason all of the lights look bigger than their physical bulbs is lens flare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare Again, in one of the earlier pictures, the headlights of a car appear to be about 5 feet in diameter. That is not due to the car having huge headlights. It is due to lens flare, which in that case is increased by the headlights being angled directly at the lens of the camera.

There is your explanation then, you admitted that the light sizes in your image are tainted by lens flare.

So again, you admit that the distant lights do get smaller and smaller. At no point either near or far do the lights stay the same size in any of the pictures. Why then does the sun not get any smaller when it is much more distant? Why would the magnification effect be greater on the sun than it is on the streetlights?

As for the angle of the streetlights changing with greater distance, that is true, and it does explain why the shape of the images of the lights appears to be less round with increasing distance. But the same thing would be true if the sun was effectively a spotlight as the flat earth model requires. The shape of the sun should change with increasing distance just as the size should change. Neither the sun's shape nor it's size changes with increasing distance.

Lens flare affects all of the lights in all of the pictures including the ones in the Wiki. And still all of the lights get gradually smaller as the distance increases, even though all of their images are affected by lens flare. So lens flare does magnify all of the lights and makes them appear larger than they really are at all distances, but it does not explain why the sun appears the same size at varying distances. Lens flare as the name implies happens in the lens of the camera, so the effect would be the same for every light at every distance.

There still is clearly no evidence in the Wiki and in the photos I have posted for the so called magnification effect.

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"
« on: May 29, 2017, 08:49:24 PM »
Here is another picture of streetlights receding into the distance:

This picture is even clearer as each successive streetlight is smaller in the image until the smallest ones are about 10% of the size of the largest and closest light. Once again there is clearly a lens effect making all of the lights appear larger than they are, as the first light is about the same size in diameter as the height of the woman in the foreground. There are no streetlights with 5 foot diameter lightbulbs. But in the meantime, the lights get progressively smaller as they recede into the distance, just as the mechanism of perspective suggests will happen. There is clearly no magnification effect happening to the lights in the distance as each light is smaller than the next closer light.

The best way to measure this is to download the picture and then zoom the picture to 400% on your computer screen. At that level of zoom, the differences are obvious to the naked eye, and can also be easily measured with a ruler.

The final 7 or so lights in that sequence look pretty similar in size, despite being as far away from each other than the first four lights.

Lights very near to you are going to look bigger if they are also angled more directly at you, or because their light is physically bigger than its projection. In these discussions we are really looking at very distant lights. We can see that the very distant lights in that scene are not consistently shrinking. The shrinking seems to slow significantly as the distance increases.

You know Tom, it would help your case if you posted something that was actually true. If you followed my suggestion and blew the picture up to 400%, and then measured the lights with a ruler, you would have quickly discovered that the the final 7 or so lights are not similar in size. In fact, they decrease consistently as they get further away.

You suggestion that the closer lights are somehow angled at the viewer is ridiculous. Why would someone install a series of streetlights at different angles? And why would they angle some of them to effectively blind someone driving down the street?

As for the closer lights being physically bigger than their "projection", this is also ridiculous. The first light in the series is almost as big as the woman walking beneath it. Have you ever seen a 4 foot diameter lightbulb on a regular streetlight? The reason all of the lights look bigger than their physical bulbs is lens flare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare Again, in one of the earlier pictures, the headlights of a car appear to be about 5 feet in diameter. That is not due to the car having huge headlights. It is due to lens flare, which in that case is increased by the headlights being angled directly at the lens of the camera.

These lights get smaller and smaller as they get further away in the picture. The sun does not get smaller as it sets. Even if there was some magnification effect (which is not proven by this picture or any other picture posted on here), it clearly is not enough to keep something appearing the exact same size even as it moves thousands of miles further away from the viewer.

You say, "The shrinking seems to slow significantly as the distance increases." Then how do you explain that in the case of the sun the shrinking does not happen at all? We are not talking about a sun that shrinks more slowly as the distance to it increases: we are talking about a sun that never shrinks at all. The most distant streetlights are 10% or less  of the size of the closer streetlights. The sun is 100% as large when it sets, even though the sun is many thousands of times as far away in the flat earth model as the lights in this picture.

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"
« on: May 26, 2017, 04:22:23 PM »
Your results are consistent with the Flat Earth model. The apparent magnification of the Sun is nullified by the real change in distance between the observer and the Sun. The very fact that you can't perceive a difference attests to that.
Yes - as I explained - the results of my "coin-at-arms-length" experiment are identical for FE and RE.  Neither is proved nor disproved.

All I'm saying is that the vociferous debates about "How does the sun get bigger if it's setting" are entirely, 100% incorrect on both sides of the debate here...because the sun doesn't get bigger when it's setting - and you can do the experiment to prove it, yourself, tonight, very easily.

It is however, a very strong optical illusion and nearly everyone believes it's a real effect until they do the experiment for themselves.

However, the fact that the sun does not get smaller disproves the flat earth model, as there is no such thing as a magnification effect due to the greater amount of atmosphere between us and the sun at sunrise and sunset.

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope
« on: May 24, 2017, 05:07:55 AM »

Just an aside on sun filters and that "shadow object." Using sun filters, we can take photos of the transits of Mercury, Venus or even the ISS across the sun. We should be able to do the same for the "shadow object".....Unless it becomes magically invisible......

I think that a flat earther would call a transit of the shadow object a solar eclipse.

7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope
« on: May 23, 2017, 10:33:34 PM »
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.

It has to be a certain kind of welder's helmet for this to be safe:

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope
« on: May 23, 2017, 09:26:26 PM »
Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lĂ˛oking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it

Do you have photographic evidence for this claim? None of the videos in this thread show such a phenomenon.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about perspective.
« on: May 23, 2017, 09:22:15 PM »
Perspective only happens inside eye or camera. It does not happen out in the scene being viewed which is the faulty assumption in that diagram. Nothing is actually forced down to the horizon out in the world we are viewing, and so the idea that perspective could hide something behind the earth that is actually located up in the sky is completely incorrect.

Here is a video that explains it pretty well:

10
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: I'm looking for a volunteer, a true flat earth believer.
« on: May 18, 2017, 12:36:13 AM »
Sounds like a one way trip to the cemetery if you go up in a ballon.
Why not just show us an honest picture of curvature, oh that's right, they don't exist.

Photographic evidence taken at about 200 meters elevation is in this post:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5471.msg116469#msg116469

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope
« on: May 15, 2017, 09:44:02 PM »
PS: The photographer in the previous post was careful to select a picture where the horizon is in the lower half of the frame as that would tend to flatten the resulting curve, whereas when the horizon is in the top half of the frame, the lens would tend to exaggerate the curve. So the fact that the compressed picture clearly shows a curve is even more impressive.

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope
« on: May 15, 2017, 09:34:25 PM »
On this page, https://www.quora.com/At-what-altitude-do-you-see-the-curvature-of-the-Earth they show some photographic evidence of the curvature of water by compressing a picture taken of the sea from about 200 meters elevation to 10% of its orignal width and 2-4 times its original height. Attached are the before and after pictures:

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"
« on: May 14, 2017, 07:06:31 PM »
And another picture where each successive light is smaller and smaller:

Test it for yourself with a ruler.

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"
« on: May 14, 2017, 06:51:41 PM »
Here is another picture of streetlights receding into the distance:

This picture is even clearer as each successive streetlight is smaller in the image until the smallest ones are about 10% of the size of the largest and closest light. Once again there is clearly a lens effect making all of the lights appear larger than they are, as the first light is about the same size in diameter as the height of the woman in the foreground. There are no streetlights with 5 foot diameter lightbulbs. But in the meantime, the lights get progressively smaller as they recede into the distance, just as the mechanism of perspective suggests will happen. There is clearly no magnification effect happening to the lights in the distance as each light is smaller than the next closer light.

The best way to measure this is to download the picture and then zoom the picture to 400% on your computer screen. At that level of zoom, the differences are obvious to the naked eye, and can also be easily measured with a ruler.

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"
« on: May 14, 2017, 04:06:23 AM »
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Yes, I tend to find it easier to accept an explanation that does not violate any known physical laws and is consistent with all other observations relevant to the explanation than it is to accept an explanation that depends on a completely new and unproven physical property of the atmosphere that has never been observed independent of the context in which it is being claimed.

For example, I downloaded the picture from the Wiki that supposedly is evidence for this effect, and yet when I zoom the picture to 400% of original size, I can easily determine that the distant streetlights appear to be about half of the size in the photo as the closer streetlights. That is what perspective does (make distant objects appear smaller) and it is doing it to the globes of light formed by each streetlight in that picture, which is also attached to this post. So the evidence offered for this magnification effect is in actual fact evidence that perspective works the same for a source of bright light as it does for everything else. There is no magnification effect.

As the wiki describes, the lights in the distance are not consistently shrinking. They should be little points, but they are not. At a certain distance they appear to stop shrinking altogether.

The lights very close to the camera are bigger, certainly, but that could be because the bulb size is bigger than the projection upon the atmosphere. This is described in the Wiki.

So the second light on the left is about 75% of the size of the first light. That is a lot of difference.... and the even more distant buls are less than half the size of the first bulb.

And as far as the bulb size looking bigger because the bulb is supposedly bigger than the mythical projection on the atmosphere, that is an understatement. The first light appears to be about as big in diameter as the height of the parking meter on the other side of the street. That is one damn big bulb!! If the bulbs are that big, then the distant bulbs sure do look damn small for them supposedly being magnified!!

My guess is that all of the lights are creating a halo of sorts on the camera lens, but each successive halo is smaller...just as perspective would cause. There is no street light with a three foot diameter bulb, and the distant lights are not looking smaller because the first bulb is bigger than their so called projection.

I would think that if you wanted to prove a magnification effect on lights via the atmosphere, the least you could do is show us a picture where the more distant lights actually do not get smaller. And also pick a picture where there are no lens effects at play also as there clearly are in this picture....unless you can show me a streetlight with a three foot diameter lightbulb. Not to mention that the headlights on the car in the foreground appear to be about 5 feet in diameter. That would be one funny looking car!!!

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth map is wrong
« on: May 09, 2017, 02:11:25 PM »

The flight was from Taipei, Taiwan to LA: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mom-gives-birth-19-hour-flight-from-taiwan_us_561ea2d2e4b050c6c4a3e94d

If you connect those two locations on a globe, you will quickly discover that like most flights, the shortest route is what is called a great circle route. On a flat map, that kind of route appears curved, but on a sphere or a globe, that curved path is the shortest route. Here is a website that allows you to calculate the shortest route on a spherical earth:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=tpe-lax

And guess what, the great circle route from Taipei (not Bali) to Los Angleles goes fairly close to Anchorage, Alaska. At the very least, halfway through that flight, Anchorage would have been the closest major airport as most of the flight is over the open ocean

See this page for a record of a recent China Airlines flight along with a map of the flight path: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CAL8/history/20170428/1550Z/RCTP/KLAX

This kind of flight path is not proof either way as it has a strong north/south component and is located in the northern hemisphere so it would appear to follow a similar path on the north pole azimuthal projection which the flat earthers use. The best way to see how different a flight path can be on a round earth versus a flat earth is to compare the path of a mostly east/west flight in the southern hemisphere such as the flights discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/

The second picture in that other thread shows very clearly how on a globe a "curved" path is actually a straight line when viewed from above.

Nirmala,
I appreciate the response. I don't claim to know a lot about how this stuff works and I've been reading and watching videos that both attempt to prove and debunk a flat earth. I'm not an FE'er, but there are a lot of things that don't make sense, on either side, to me. I continually tell myself, regardless of flat earth or globe, I am learning things that I slept through in school. Thanks for taking the time to explain things without being condescending.

Yes, I also came to the flat earth theory with a fairly open attitude, and I also found that I learned a lot about perspective, refraction, astronomy and other topics while exploring this theory. However, over time I personally found that there were a lot more aspects of the flat earth theory that do not stand up to close scrutiny or analysis, whereas I have yet to find a criticism of the round earth model that is truly impossible to account for. That has been my journey with all of this, and I wish you all the best as you explore it for yourself.

As with most online forums and discussions, it is pretty easy to slip into personal attacks. So you may want to put on some protective gear when you post on here

17
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Feeling the rotation of the moon?
« on: May 09, 2017, 12:09:18 AM »

Yes, that CGI image explains it all
I guess the next step is to take pictures yourself.

Yes, why would anyone bother with CGI when a telescope would do just fine. It is not like that perspective on the moon with its various phases is not a commonplace occurrence on earth. Flat earthers are so used to crying "Fake!" when shown any picture that they do so even when it is a simple picture taken of something everyone can see in the night sky

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth map is wrong
« on: May 08, 2017, 09:20:37 PM »
Please explain how it shows on the flat earth maps why it is a longer distance from Australia to south America than it is from uae  to Australia? Also when I flew from Doha to Melbourne I flew over Indian ocean but you can't go that route on the flat earth map, the flat earth has you over India . also if you circumnavigate earth if it is a globe then it can travel in a straight path round and on flat earth you go in a circle so you stop going straight and start adding time and distance.? If maps wrong then how can it be fixed without changing distance between the different points?

A Taiwanese woman gave birth 6 hours into a flight from Bali to LAX, which is 19 hour flight. They had to make an emergency landing in Anchorage Alaska, which is a 23 hour flight from Bali to Alaska. 6 hours into a flight from Bali to LAX and you go over 2,000 miles off course to get to Alaska? That emergency landing doesn't make sense on a globe. It does on a Flat Earth map, though. On a Flat Earth map, Anchorage is in the middle of Bali and LAX.

I don't know if that proves anything, but it sure is suspicious.

What the video below or just google "Taiwanese woman gives birth on plane" and see for yourself.

The flight was from Taipei, Taiwan to LA: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mom-gives-birth-19-hour-flight-from-taiwan_us_561ea2d2e4b050c6c4a3e94d

If you connect those two locations on a globe, you will quickly discover that like most flights, the shortest route is what is called a great circle route. On a flat map, that kind of route appears curved, but on a sphere or a globe, that curved path is the shortest route. Here is a website that allows you to calculate the shortest route on a spherical earth:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=tpe-lax

And guess what, the great circle route from Taipei (not Bali) to Los Angleles goes fairly close to Anchorage, Alaska. At the very least, halfway through that flight, Anchorage would have been the closest major airport as most of the flight is over the open ocean

See this page for a record of a recent China Airlines flight along with a map of the flight path: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CAL8/history/20170428/1550Z/RCTP/KLAX

This kind of flight path is not proof either way as it has a strong north/south component and is located in the northern hemisphere so it would appear to follow a similar path on the north pole azimuthal projection which the flat earthers use. The best way to see how different a flight path can be on a round earth versus a flat earth is to compare the path of a mostly east/west flight in the southern hemisphere such as the flights discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/

The second picture in that other thread shows very clearly how on a globe a "curved" path is actually a straight line when viewed from above.

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope
« on: May 08, 2017, 07:36:21 PM »
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?

20
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"
« on: May 08, 2017, 07:24:15 PM »
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Yes, I tend to find it easier to accept an explanation that does not violate any known physical laws and is consistent with all other observations relevant to the explanation than it is to accept an explanation that depends on a completely new and unproven physical property of the atmosphere that has never been observed independent of the context in which it is being claimed.

For example, I downloaded the picture from the Wiki that supposedly is evidence for this effect, and yet when I zoom the picture to 400% of original size, I can easily determine that the distant streetlights appear to be about half of the size in the photo as the closer streetlights. That is what perspective does (make distant objects appear smaller) and it is doing it to the globes of light formed by each streetlight in that picture, which is also attached to this post. So the evidence offered for this magnification effect is in actual fact evidence that perspective works the same for a source of bright light as it does for everything else. There is no magnification effect.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >