Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2017, 04:51:35 PM »
I will try once more, and then sign off. If a flat-earth theorist wants to accept our invitation, please send me a private message.

Thanks for the effort, I didn't expect any of the FE faithful would accept.



This coming December 31st offers a nice occultation of Aldebaran by the moon. Try it for yourselves: get an army of flat-earthers to observe the occultation from various (widely-spaced) locations, and bring them together to discuss the results. Sketches or photographs, please. Then let me know by private message whether you wish to engage in a public face-to-face discussion next April Fools' Day.

Thanks for the heads up on that event, it would be an interesting experiment. Although I think that to prevent any claims of faking evidence, it would be useful to have FE & RE believers observe and photograph it together to maintain a kind of chain of evidence. I would be glad to participate from Northern Atlanta, GA. Although the best instrument I have to observe with is a basic DSLR with zoom.

I found a couple of articles on this and some reference to it happening on Dec 30, 2017. Can you clarify? I suspect it is happening on Dec 31 in UTC, but before midnight local time in the US, so Dec 30 there.


Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2017, 05:31:56 PM »
I will try once more, and then sign off. If a flat-earth theorist wants to accept our invitation, please send me a private message. Transportation costs are out of the question; our Board of Directors won't allow it.

I'd be willing to contribute towards transportation costs, just for fun.

Quote


Here's why lunar (or asteroid) occultations are important to the question of the earth's shape.

In the flat earth model, to account for the ~5 degree shift in the positions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars as one moves ~350 miles north or south, you must argue that those celestial objects are no more than about 4000 miles away, from simple trigonometry. Never mind that radar measurements of the moon contradict that argument; let's go with your conspiracy theory for the moment.

The stars must be somewhat farther away than the moon, or else occultations would not occur at all, but can't be much farther because the shifts (as one moves north or south) observed for stars would be much less than for the moon (in the flat earth model), contrary to observations.

Therefore in the flat-earth model, an occultation of Aldebaran either occurs or doesn't occur depending on whether the moon crosses in front of Aldebaran. So any place where both moon and Aldebaran are visible at the right time should observe the occultation, and there would be no difference in the circumstances of the occultation (i.e. where on the face of the moon the star disappears and subsequently reappears) whether you move south or north as long as the event is above the horizon. 

What is in fact observed is that some locations on earth see a grazing occultation on the northern limb of the moon, some see a grazing occultation on the southern limb, and locations in between see the star disappear at various points around the moon. This is the effect of the moon's parallax - it is much closer to us than the star is. To demonstrate parallax: close one eye, hold your finger at arm's length so that it occults something you see out the window (a tree, chimney, mountain, whatever). Open that eye, close the other one, and the object is no longer occulted. This is one way we measure distances in astronomy.

The moon's parallax with respect to Aldebaran (or any other star it occults) implies that the star must be very much farther away than the moon. Again trigonometry can give you a (very crude) lower limit to the star's distance based on the precision with which you can measure small angles. But this would further imply that the shift in the positions of those stars as you move ~350 miles north or south on a flat earth would be much less than the ~5 degrees observed - a contradiction that can only be resolved by considering the true figure of the earth.

This coming December 31st offers a nice occultation of Aldebaran by the moon. Try it for yourselves: get an army of flat-earthers to observe the occultation from various (widely-spaced) locations, and bring them together to discuss the results. Sketches or photographs, please. Then let me know by private message whether you wish to engage in a public face-to-face discussion next April Fools' Day.

Farewell, folks, and thanks for the amusing interchange.

This is great, but the assumption that you can measure distances on Earth is what will trip up argument here.

On the bright side, it sounds like latitude might be a thing after all, so baby steps.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2017, 08:24:58 PM »
I will try once more, and then sign off. If a flat-earth theorist wants to accept our invitation, please send me a private message. Transportation costs are out of the question; our Board of Directors won't allow it.

Here's why lunar (or asteroid) occultations are important to the question of the earth's shape.

In the flat earth model, to account for the ~5 degree shift in the positions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars as one moves ~350 miles north or south, you must argue that those celestial objects are no more than about 4000 miles away, from simple trigonometry. Never mind that radar measurements of the moon contradict that argument; let's go with your conspiracy theory for the moment.

The stars must be somewhat farther away than the moon, or else occultations would not occur at all, but can't be much farther because the shifts (as one moves north or south) observed for stars would be much less than for the moon (in the flat earth model), contrary to observations.

Therefore in the flat-earth model, an occultation of Aldebaran either occurs or doesn't occur depending on whether the moon crosses in front of Aldebaran. So any place where both moon and Aldebaran are visible at the right time should observe the occultation, and there would be no difference in the circumstances of the occultation (i.e. where on the face of the moon the star disappears and subsequently reappears) whether you move south or north as long as the event is above the horizon. 

What is in fact observed is that some locations on earth see a grazing occultation on the northern limb of the moon, some see a grazing occultation on the southern limb, and locations in between see the star disappear at various points around the moon. This is the effect of the moon's parallax - it is much closer to us than the star is. To demonstrate parallax: close one eye, hold your finger at arm's length so that it occults something you see out the window (a tree, chimney, mountain, whatever). Open that eye, close the other one, and the object is no longer occulted. This is one way we measure distances in astronomy.

The moon's parallax with respect to Aldebaran (or any other star it occults) implies that the star must be very much farther away than the moon. Again trigonometry can give you a (very crude) lower limit to the star's distance based on the precision with which you can measure small angles. But this would further imply that the shift in the positions of those stars as you move ~350 miles north or south on a flat earth would be much less than the ~5 degrees observed - a contradiction that can only be resolved by considering the true figure of the earth.

This coming December 31st offers a nice occultation of Aldebaran by the moon. Try it for yourselves: get an army of flat-earthers to observe the occultation from various (widely-spaced) locations, and bring them together to discuss the results. Sketches or photographs, please. Then let me know by private message whether you wish to engage in a public face-to-face discussion next April Fools' Day.

Farewell, folks, and thanks for the amusing interchange.

That's an interesting observation.

Certainly the different elevations of a star (or moon or sun) from different locations means that EITHER that body is around 4000 miles away OR the Earth is a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles and the object in question is a very long way away.

The precision with which that number can be measured is critical.

Eratosthenes measured it for the sun - and came up with a number OVER 4,000 miles - which means that the FE'ers are mistaken with their 3,000 mile number.

With modern equipment, we have a better measurement than Eatosthenes - so the number for the sun elevation must be VERY close to the RET mean radius of the Earth (3,959 miles).  The distance from sun/moon/planets/stars to the Flat Earth must be VERY close to that number.   The only difference could be the error in the measurement of the size of the Earth...which is less than the 31 mile claimed diameter of sun.

So if the stars are far enough away to being hit by the sun or moon - then they are already too far away to account for the measurements we have.

IMHO, the Flat Earthers should be predicting that Aldeberan will hit the moon and disappear from the skies forever!
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2017, 08:26:59 PM »

IMHO, the Flat Earthers should be predicting that Aldeberan will hit the moon and disappear from the skies forever!
Has FE ever predicted anything? I doubt they will start with this.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2017, 03:08:48 AM »
I will try once more, and then sign off. If a flat-earth theorist wants to accept our invitation, please send me a private message. Transportation costs are out of the question; our Board of Directors won't allow it.

Here's why lunar (or asteroid) occultations are important to the question of the earth's shape.

In the flat earth model, to account for the ~5 degree shift in the positions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars as one moves ~350 miles north or south, you must argue that those celestial objects are no more than about 4000 miles away, from simple trigonometry. Never mind that radar measurements of the moon contradict that argument; let's go with your conspiracy theory for the moment.

The stars must be somewhat farther away than the moon, or else occultations would not occur at all, but can't be much farther because the shifts (as one moves north or south) observed for stars would be much less than for the moon (in the flat earth model), contrary to observations.

Therefore in the flat-earth model, an occultation of Aldebaran either occurs or doesn't occur depending on whether the moon crosses in front of Aldebaran. So any place where both moon and Aldebaran are visible at the right time should observe the occultation, and there would be no difference in the circumstances of the occultation (i.e. where on the face of the moon the star disappears and subsequently reappears) whether you move south or north as long as the event is above the horizon. 

What is in fact observed is that some locations on earth see a grazing occultation on the northern limb of the moon, some see a grazing occultation on the southern limb, and locations in between see the star disappear at various points around the moon. This is the effect of the moon's parallax - it is much closer to us than the star is. To demonstrate parallax: close one eye, hold your finger at arm's length so that it occults something you see out the window (a tree, chimney, mountain, whatever). Open that eye, close the other one, and the object is no longer occulted. This is one way we measure distances in astronomy.

The moon's parallax with respect to Aldebaran (or any other star it occults) implies that the star must be very much farther away than the moon. Again trigonometry can give you a (very crude) lower limit to the star's distance based on the precision with which you can measure small angles. But this would further imply that the shift in the positions of those stars as you move ~350 miles north or south on a flat earth would be much less than the ~5 degrees observed - a contradiction that can only be resolved by considering the true figure of the earth.

You assume that large distance perspective follows the ancient rules of "simple trigonometry" which assumes a continuous universe model.

That is called an assumption. A hypothesis. Something which has never been demonstrated. The Ancient Greeks never proved their perspective theories.

You want us to make explanations based on a model you have not shown to be accurate.

If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, or that perspective behaves the same at all scales, you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.

Unless you can substantiate the underlying assumptions of your challenge I see no reason why anyone should attempt an answer or take your questions seriously.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 02:42:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2017, 03:15:26 AM »
If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, or that perspective behaves the same at all scales, you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.
You have never shown that it does not. This is your claim, you need to show evidence that the rules change at long distances. I've told you this now repeatedly. Trig - when using numbers to account for the limits of the eye - accurately represents perspective. I showed you this with the railroad tracks. You claim those rules break down at some unknown distance for some reason. Prove it. This is your claim. The numbers work for all testable distances. You are claiming they stop working past them. Where is your evidence for this claim? Where is your proof?

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2017, 03:25:34 AM »

You assume that large distance perspective follows the ancient rules of "simple trigonometry" which assumes a continuous universe model.

That is called an assumption. A hypothesis. Something which has never been demonstrated. The Ancient Greeks never proved their perspective theories.

You want us to make explanations based on a model you have not shown to be accurate.

If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, you will be unable to do so.

We therefore win by default as the challenger has based his premise on an unproven tenet. The conversation cannot continue, and no further consideration can be made to that challenge, unless those basic tenets are substantiated.

There, I saved myself a weekend.
Just when I think the nonsense here can't become any more absurd.

Tom, while I think your grasp of science is completely flawed, usually I think you show some effort to at least portray some level of thinking, even if it is completely wrong. Your posts on this thread really come off as desperate to avoid facing his logic and knowledge in public. I expected this, but I expected it by inaction.

Quote
two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch
I think you mean parallel lines here. How would one prove to your satisfaction that they approach for infinity but don't touch? I suspect the only way would be to examine them at infinity, which is clearly impossible. To paraphrase, I refuse to talk to you until you prove something impossible to prove. Just childish.

And for the last time (I wish). Parallel lines APPEAR to approach to our eyes. This has nothing to do with how they exist in the real world.

Quote
that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon

Viewed from Atlanta, GA on December 30, 2017. The moon will block the view of Aldebaran starting at 18:09:36 with the moon at 28 degrees above the horizon at azimuth 88 degrees.
Ending at 18:52:22 with the moon at 37 degrees above the horizon at azimuth 94 degrees. This is sourced from http://www.lunar-occultations.com/iota/bstar/1230zc692.htm

What were you saying about not predicting things?

So go on with your usual diatribe about astronomy. Do you expect these predictions to be correct or not?





Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2017, 03:31:18 AM »
You assume that large distance perspective follows the ancient rules of "simple trigonometry" which assumes a continuous universe model.


I have to break this news to you, trigonometry works. I challenge you to corroborate your statement that trigonometry is in anyway based on an assumption of a "continuous universe model".

Maybe you could start by defining "continuous universe model".


Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #48 on: November 16, 2017, 01:29:34 PM »
You assume that large distance perspective follows the ancient rules of "simple trigonometry" which assumes a continuous universe model.

That is called an assumption. A hypothesis. Something which has never been demonstrated. The Ancient Greeks never proved their perspective theories.

You want us to make explanations based on a model you have not shown to be accurate.

If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, or that perspective behaves the same at all scales, you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.

Unless you can substantiate the underlying assumptions of your challenge I see no reason why anyone should attempt an answer or take your questions seriously.
Tom, you are embarrassingly unable to prove anything about FET. You ASSUME parallel lines touch at some point due to perspective. You need this to be true so you can have a vanishing point (which is an art term) to explain the horizon and setting sun, etc. The problem is, there is no proof this ever happens.
I'm assuming when you refer to a non-continuous universe, you are referring to Max Planck's work? (Planck length basically quantizes the universe. There is a length below which spacetime ceases to exist) You probably also know that this has no bearing on our everyday existence. You should probably also know that this is unobservable, so you couldn't possibly believe it anyways. That pesky empiricism thing.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2017, 02:42:11 PM »
You assume that large distance perspective follows the ancient rules of "simple trigonometry" which assumes a continuous universe model.

Yes, I do.  But you characterize "simple trigonometry" as "ancient" and (by implication) old and outdated.   But the proofs of what they said are still valid.  Every logical step they take is still true.   These are truths about mathematics - no some concept that can become outdated.

But I'm intrigued by your complaint that we're assuming a "continuous universe model".

This is not a clear-cut term.   If you google it - you get arguments about the continuous universe as an alternative to Big Bang theory...and that the continuous universe model is outdated.   So if THAT is what you're talking about, then (a) No, I'm not assuming that - the Big Bang seems a well-proven thing...and (b) I don't see how trigonometry and perspective and all of that relates in any way to whether you assume one or the other.

So I can only assume you assign some other meaning to the phrase.  Deeper searching yields the possibility that you are talking about "discrete versus continuous" physics.   But this is stuff about whether quantum theory is an artifact of a continuous underlying structure or one that is truly quantized...and again, I see nothing in either belief that changes my answers on trigonometry and perspective.

So in order for conversation to proceed - you'll need to explain what you mean by "continuous universe model" and in what ways discarding it helps your case.

Quote
That is called an assumption. A hypothesis. Something which has never been demonstrated. The Ancient Greeks never proved their perspective theories.

Euclid's "Optics" is the first serious mathematical treatment of perspective - and it most certainly does contain proofs.  You can find a modern translation of it here: http://philomatica.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Optics-of-Euclid.pdf

But everything in it can be proven - and I have done so in at least two thread here - which you do not seem to have been able to follow.  You just said something like "But that's just a diagram" and went back to talking about it in ways that double-dip on perspective by (in effect) applying it twice...which is simply an error.

Quote
You want us to make explanations based on a model you have not shown to be accurate.

There are many ways to show that it's accurate.   One is to take the mathematics that I derive from nothing more than:

* a pinhole camera.
* straight light rays.
* the law of similar triangles.

This yields the equations:

   x' = x k / z
   y' = y k / z

(where x' and y' are the post-perspective coordinates, x,y,z are the real world coordinates and k is a constant related to the size of the camera versus the size of the image).

Using a computer (as I do, literally every day) to produce pictures of the world produces images that line up perfectly with real world photography.   This is PROOF that the math is correct.

Quote
If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, or that perspective behaves the same at all scales, you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.

I never said that "two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch" - perhaps you mean "two parallel lines will never touch" (in the real world) or that with perspective "two parallel lines will touch at infinity".   Those things can be proven from the definition of the word "parallel" and the equations above that I derived from pinhole camera/straight lines/similar triangles.

That "perspective behaves the same at all scales" is inevitable if light travels in straight lines and the law of similar triangles is true.   You seem to agree that light travels in straight lines (although you "embarrassingly" are unable to write that thread you TWICE promised us in which you'd explain how photons get from the sun to the eye at sunset)...if you don't agree that the law of similar triangles is true - then I'd be happy to regurgitate the proof for you in small words that you'd understand.

Far *FAR* from being "embarrassingly unable" to prove those things - I HAVE proven them...many times and in many ways - you simply choose to simply dismiss or ignore all of my proofs.

Never once have you taken my careful step by step arguments and said..."HERE!  Step 4 - that's not true because..." and explained precisely where my reasoning breaks down.

The reason you cannot is because my geometric arguments are 100% correct and either you can't follow them because you're poorly educated and don't understand high school geometry - or you willfully ignore them because you know they prove conclusively that there cannot be sunsets in a flat earth.

That a body some distance away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon is also proven in at least a couple of diagrams I posted and some posts which you basically ignored or dismissed as "just diagrams".

Quote
Unless you can substantiate the underlying assumptions of your challenge I see no reason why anyone should attempt an answer or take your questions seriously.

Ah - so after twice saying that you WOULD explain how those photons travel from sun to eye at sunset - you're now saying that you're not going to answer me.

The underlying assumptions of my arguments are CLEARLY stated...light travels in straight lines...pinhole cameras really do take good photos...the law of similar triangles is true.

The steps from that to "Here are the laws of perspective and they don't allow sunsets in FET" are laid out in at least two previous threads that you responded to and failed to follow up with your explanation.

OK - well that tells us a lot about your level of intellect and the weakness of your arguments.   Would you prefer to be labelled ignorant or a liar?

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

devils advocate

Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #50 on: November 16, 2017, 04:08:45 PM »

If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch,  you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.

Tom this is just nonsense! The dictionary definition of parallel:

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+parallel&oq=define+parallel&aqs=chrome..69i57.3967j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=onadjective
1.
(of lines, planes, or surfaces) side by side and having the same distance continuously between them.

The very MEANING of the word parallel is that the line have the same space between them therefore THEY CAN NEVER TOUCH! You do not require proof of this, the proof is in the very words you are using!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #51 on: November 16, 2017, 05:43:40 PM »
If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, or that perspective behaves the same at all scales, you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.
You have never shown that it does not. This is your claim, you need to show evidence that the rules change at long distances. I've told you this now repeatedly.

Nope. You are the one coming here and saying that perspective operates according to certain rules of trigonometry. Therefore it is YOU who needs to back up your claims.

Show that two parallel perspective lines will never meet. In our experience they do appear to meet. Show that the merging of the lines in perspective is an illusion.

Your position is that illusions are occurring. How is it NOT your responsibility to demonstrate that?

Quote
You are claiming they stop working past them. Where is your evidence for this claim? Where is your proof?

I am not asserting anything more that what is empirical; the meeting of perspective lines. You are asserting something contrary to experience and so it is your responsibility to prove that perspective operates on certain rules.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 05:54:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #52 on: November 16, 2017, 05:52:17 PM »
I think you mean parallel lines here. How would one prove to your satisfaction that they approach for infinity but don't touch? I suspect the only way would be to examine them at infinity, which is clearly impossible. To paraphrase, I refuse to talk to you until you prove something impossible to prove. Just childish.

I don't really care if it is impossible to prove for you. It just goes to show that it cannot be demonstrated and so we should not assume it in the premise.

Quote
And for the last time (I wish). Parallel lines APPEAR to approach to our eyes. This has nothing to do with how they exist in the real world.

We have no evidence other than what we experience. You are trying to combat an empirical experience with an ancient hypothesis.

Quote
Quote
that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon

Viewed from Atlanta, GA on December 30, 2017. The moon will block the view of Aldebaran starting at 18:09:36 with the moon at 28 degrees above the horizon at azimuth 88 degrees.
Ending at 18:52:22 with the moon at 37 degrees above the horizon at azimuth 94 degrees. This is sourced from http://www.lunar-occultations.com/iota/bstar/1230zc692.htm

What were you saying about not predicting things?

So go on with your usual diatribe about astronomy. Do you expect these predictions to be correct or not?

Astronomy is based on observed patterns. Observed patterns of the moon, observed patterns of the stars. Things are only predictable because they come in patterns. It is possible to create an equation to express those patterns, but they are only valuable in that they might produce a right answer.

Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2017, 05:53:27 PM »
If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, or that perspective behaves the same at all scales, you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.
You have never shown that it does not. This is your claim, you need to show evidence that the rules change at long distances. I've told you this now repeatedly.

Nope. You are the one coming here and saying that perspective operates according to certain rules of trigonometry. Therefore it is YOU who needs to back up your claims.

Show that two parallel perspective lines will never meet. In our experience they do appear to meet. Show that the merging of the lines in perspective is an illusion.

Quote
You are claiming they stop working past them. Where is your evidence for this claim? Where is your proof?

I am not asserting anything more that what is empirical; the meeting of perspective lines. You are asserting something contrary to experience and so it is your responsibility to prove that perspective operates on certain rules.
Perspective is not relevant to any discussion about the shape of the earth.  'Perspective lines' are not real lines, but what we appear to see.  Look it up.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2017, 06:22:38 PM »
You assume that large distance perspective follows the ancient rules of "simple trigonometry" which assumes a continuous universe model.

Yes, I do.  But you characterize "simple trigonometry" as "ancient" and (by implication) old and outdated.   But the proofs of what they said are still valid.  Every logical step they take is still true.   These are truths about mathematics - no some concept that can become outdated.

But I'm intrigued by your complaint that we're assuming a "continuous universe model".

This is not a clear-cut term.   If you google it - you get arguments about the continuous universe as an alternative to Big Bang theory...and that the continuous universe model is outdated.   So if THAT is what you're talking about, then (a) No, I'm not assuming that - the Big Bang seems a well-proven thing...and (b) I don't see how trigonometry and perspective and all of that relates in any way to whether you assume one or the other.

So I can only assume you assign some other meaning to the phrase.  Deeper searching yields the possibility that you are talking about "discrete versus continuous" physics.   But this is stuff about whether quantum theory is an artifact of a continuous underlying structure or one that is truly quantized...and again, I see nothing in either belief that changes my answers on trigonometry and perspective.

So in order for conversation to proceed - you'll need to explain what you mean by "continuous universe model" and in what ways discarding it helps your case.

Nearly all of our math is based on the teachings of the Ancient Greeks. Even new forms of maths are based on their fundamental premises. Under the teachings of the Ancient Greeks the number lines are infinitely long and infinitely divisible. There is no discrete concept of a number. These teachings are also applied to the universe; the math which describes how the world and the universe operate also makes such assumptions.

Quote
Euclid's "Optics" is the first serious mathematical treatment of perspective - and it most certainly does contain proofs.  You can find a modern translation of it here: http://philomatica.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Optics-of-Euclid.pdf

But everything in it can be proven - and I have done so in at least two thread here - which you do not seem to have been able to follow.  You just said something like "But that's just a diagram" and went back to talking about it in ways that double-dip on perspective by (in effect) applying it twice...which is simply an error.

Elucid was wrong about a lot of things. The Greek model of the universe is flimsy.

The continuous universe model, the basic concepts of line and point graphs, which are infinitely indivisible and infinitely long, was disproven by Zeno of Elea. His numerous critiques show that the continuous universe model is a sham and does not translate to the real world. For example, this math makes it impossible to walk through a door, or for a rabbit to overcome a tortoise in a  race.

Look up Zeno's Paradox. Zeno's Paradox deals with how space and time work on the smallest scales.

Quote
Quote
You want us to make explanations based on a model you have not shown to be accurate.

There are many ways to show that it's accurate.   One is to take the mathematics that I derive from nothing more than:

* a pinhole camera.
* straight light rays.
* the law of similar triangles.

This yields the equations:

   x' = x k / z
   y' = y k / z

(where x' and y' are the post-perspective coordinates, x,y,z are the real world coordinates and k is a constant related to the size of the camera versus the size of the image).

Using a computer (as I do, literally every day) to produce pictures of the world produces images that line up perfectly with real world photography.   This is PROOF that the math is correct.

I don't see any evidence of anything. Line up how? I don't see any pictures.

Quote
I never said that "two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch" - perhaps you mean "two parallel lines will never touch" (in the real world) or that with perspective "two parallel lines will touch at infinity".   Those things can be proven from the definition of the word "parallel"

The definition of parallel does not account for perspective. If the definition were true than railroad tracks could never be angled at each other.

Quote
That "perspective behaves the same at all scales" is inevitable if light travels in straight lines and the law of similar triangles is true.   You seem to agree that light travels in straight lines (although you "embarrassingly" are unable to write that thread you TWICE promised us in which you'd explain how photons get from the sun to the eye at sunset)...if you don't agree that the law of similar triangles is true - then I'd be happy to regurgitate the proof for you in small words that you'd understand.

The matter on how photons travel has been addressed several times for you. You keep pointing back to your illustrations of a continuous universe model as if it proves something about how the world works. You are assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world.

Quote
Far *FAR* from being "embarrassingly unable" to prove those things - I HAVE proven them...many times and in many ways - you simply choose to simply dismiss or ignore all of my proofs.

All of your proofs require us to assume several hypothesis' as true.

Quote
Never once have you taken my careful step by step arguments and said..."HERE!  Step 4 - that's not true because..." and explained precisely where my reasoning breaks down.

It is not that it is not or cannot be true; the premise is unfounded and so that must first be addressed.

Quote
The reason you cannot is because my geometric arguments are 100% correct and either you can't follow them because you're poorly educated and don't understand high school geometry

We are far more familiar with these topics than you are. We do understand "high school geometry" and have summarily rejected it until certain fundamental tenets have been demonstrated.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 06:32:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #55 on: November 16, 2017, 06:23:13 PM »
Show that two parallel perspective lines will never meet. In our experience they do appear to meet. Show that the merging of the lines in perspective is an illusion.

Your position is that illusions are occurring. How is it NOT your responsibility to demonstrate that?

I have never seen 2 parallel lines converge. If you think they do, I suggest you go back to grade school and relearn what parallel means.

You've asked this illusion thing in the past. It is either real or an illusion, correct? We know, without any doubt that train tracks never converge. It is, therefore, an illusion. Perspective doesn't change reality, it only changes your perception of it.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2017, 06:30:26 PM »
Tom - please explain your non-continuous universe and how it relates to FET. Much like perspective, no one knows exactly what you are talking about.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2017, 06:35:15 PM »
If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, or that perspective behaves the same at all scales, you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.
You have never shown that it does not. This is your claim, you need to show evidence that the rules change at long distances. I've told you this now repeatedly.

Nope. You are the one coming here and saying that perspective operates according to certain rules of trigonometry. Therefore it is YOU who needs to back up your claims.

Show that two parallel perspective lines will never meet. In our experience they do appear to meet. Show that the merging of the lines in perspective is an illusion.
I have never ever said that. You are the one who keeps conflating parallel lines and perspective lines. They are NOT the same thing. Parallel lines will never meet. Fact. Parallel lines will appear to meet in the eye due to the limits of perspective. Fact. I showed you exactly how the math works in another thread.

Quote
Quote
You are claiming they stop working past them. Where is your evidence for this claim? Where is your proof?

I am not asserting anything more that what is empirical; the meeting of perspective lines. You are asserting something contrary to experience and so it is your responsibility to prove that perspective operates on certain rules.
I've said repeatedly that perspective lines meet, and exactly how the math shows they meet in our eyes. You are claiming that 20 degrees is small enough to not see because of perspective at long distances with no proof or evidence to back up that claim.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2017, 06:39:00 PM »
Tom - please explain your non-continuous universe and how it relates to FET. Much like perspective, no one knows exactly what you are talking about.

The ancients tried to apply their math and ideas about number lines, how they are infinitely long and infinitely discrete, in addition to other continuous mathematical concepts, to the real world. This is why, according to their math, the perspective lines never meet.

We challenge that assertion and would like to see more evidence than a mathematical hypothesis about how perspective would behave before concluding what should or should not happen with long perspective lines.

Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2017, 06:39:18 PM »

The definition of parallel does not account for perspective. If the definition were true than railroad tracks could never be angled at each other

You realize that railroad tracks aren't ACTUALLY angled at each other, right? The tracks only APPEAR to be angled at each other.

"Parallel" describes things as they actually are in the world. "Perspective" describes how things appear to the observer.

You cannot mix the two. Perspective lines appear to meet at infinity, you (and Rowbotham) are the one insisting that perspective lines meet before infinity, without evidence.

Quote
Show that two parallel perspective lines will never meet. In our experience they do appear to meet. Show that the merging of the lines in perspective is an illusion.

What experience do you have of travelling to infinity to see if the lines have met yet or not? I have not taken any hallucinogenics, but if it would help please recommend some.