The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Austinswill on December 22, 2020, 02:18:10 AM
-
I shot this video tonight. I have described this to flat earth folks before. This proves a round earth.
Ill just let you guys watch it and if you have any questions I will be happy to answer them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHdpmeoiRzk
-
Explain what people are seeing here. Where is this? What are you flying? What is your starting observing height...ending observing height?
-
Explain what people are seeing here. Where is this? What are you flying? What is your starting observing height...ending observing height?
Sure thing.
This is over northern Kentucky at 13,000 feet MSL at the beginning of the video. We are flying level heading Northwest (HG 300 ish). We record the sun setting in level flight. We then initiate a climb to 28,000 feet and make the climb rapidly. As we ascend you can clearly see the sun appearing to rise back up over the horizon.
This can only happen on a Round/spheroid earth.
-
As your aircraft climbed, you were simply able to overcome the limitations of your vision. Please refer to Earth Not a Globe, Chapter 14: https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
"At these times it appears close to the horizon where the density of the air differs greatly. The air near the ground is denser than the layer of air just above it, and the layer of air above that is less dense still, and so on upwards until the Earth's atmosphere peters out at some 400 km. Now consider what happens when the Sun is setting. When the Sun is at the horizon, light from the top of the disc is going through the air at a different angle than that from the lower part. So the rays are bent by different amounts before they reach the observer's eye."
And more specific to your particular line of enquiry:
"Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point."
-
As your aircraft climbed, you were simply able to overcome the limitations of your vision. Please refer to Earth Not a Globe, Chapter 14: https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
Hogwash... that video is not from my eye... it is taken with a camera at 12x zoom. None of what you are seeing in the video is a limitation of the human eye.
"At these times it appears close to the horizon where the density of the air differs greatly. The air near the ground is denser than the layer of air just above it, and the layer of air above that is less dense still, and so on upwards until the Earth's atmosphere peters out at some 400 km. Now consider what happens when the Sun is setting. When the Sun is at the horizon, light from the top of the disc is going through the air at a different angle than that from the lower part. So the rays are bent by different amounts before they reach the observer's eye."
If it were a matter of air density, then the shape of the sun would still be visible, only more dim in the thicker air and brighter in thin air. This is why a setting sun become more orange and more dim as you view it through more air when it is close to the horizon. However, the earth blocking it as it goes below the horizon is a complete shutout of the light and changes the shape of the viewable sun.
And more specific to your particular line of enquiry:
"Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point."
In figure 83, they have been deceptive. If we are supposing a flat earth, there should be no rise in the water in that diagram. It is cleverly done to make a bad point but furthermore only reinforces that the earth is round by showing that there is a difference in perspective elevation based on distance.
That all being said.... My video is NOT of a sailboat on the surface of the ocean. It is of the sun setting behind the horizon as we are flying TOWARDS it at nearly 500 MPH, and then coming back into full view as we gain altitude.
None of what you quoted disputes any of my video, do you have any thoughts of your own?
-
The air near the ground is denser than the layer of air just above it, and the layer of air above that is less dense still, and so on upwards until the Earth's atmosphere peters out at some 400 km. Now consider what happens when the Sun is setting. When the Sun is at the horizon, light from the top of the disc is going through the air at a different angle than that from the lower part. So the rays are bent by different amounts before they reach the observer's eye.
... implying that the appearance of the sun would change gradually with variation in air density, but that doesn't happen. There's a clear on/off ~ light/no light ~ scenario here, where the lower portions of the sun go totally dark, and where part, and eventually the whole, simply cannot be seen at all.
... on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point.
At which point, you could consider examining objects which are not at the "vanishing point". Consider the sightlines to objects far nearer than the horizon, and consider whether or not the sightlines to and beyond them are consistent with a flat earth.
-
As your aircraft climbed, you were simply able to overcome the limitations of your vision. Please refer to Earth Not a Globe, Chapter 14: https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
The 'limitations of vision' FET argument is utterly ridiculous. Human vision is limited, of course, but it is not limited by range, but by angular resolution. We can see large things a long way away, and small things up close. That's why we can see a lot more with a microscope, or a telescope, than we can with our naked eyes.
Likewise, the perspective argument just falls apart with any kind of basic analysis. Consider a straight road with equidistant streetlights, receding into the distance. The angle between pairs of lights will reduce with increasing distance. But now look at star constellations. If perspective was a factor, then their angular separation would reduce as they close on the horizon. But that doesn't happen, does it?
-
OP: Each FE board has a "read before posting" thread at the top of it. Read them before posting.
Please not that this is not the right board for asking entry-level FET questions. If your post starts with "I'm new and I just wanted to ask" or "The Earth can't be flat because of this concept", you're in the wrong place and should probably be looking at the Flat Earth Theory (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10088.0) board (and the FAQ).
Anyway.
This can only happen on a Round/spheroid earth.
It can also happen on the FE+EA model. I can only assume you forgot to familiarise yourself with the subject you're debating prior to debating it. We have fairly high expectations of people who just waltz in here and declare themselves to be correct. Please try to be more careful in the future.
Human vision is limited, of course, but it is not limited by range, but by angular resolution.
This is nonsense. You might want to argue that human vision is theoretically not limited by range, but this is going to fail outside of cutesy high school physics problems. A couple of obvious objections: you assume that the eyes of your hypothetical observer are perfect (they aren't), and that the atmolayer does not exist (it does).
But now look at star constellations. If perspective was a factor, then their angular separation would reduce as they close on the horizon. But that doesn't happen, does it?
This would imply that the stars become proportionally more distant from one another as they appear to approach the horizon. I can't fathom a world in which that would be the case, round or flat.
-
Indulge my theory for one sec. What if the sun was actually behind the image you see in the sunset. Like, what if the sun was travelling in front of its reflection, and was beyond human sight.
-
But now look at star constellations. If perspective was a factor, then their angular separation would reduce as they close on the horizon. But that doesn't happen, does it?
This would imply that the stars become proportionally more distant from one another as they appear to approach the horizon. I can't fathom a world in which that would be the case, round or flat.
The wiki tells us that
when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective.
It is arguing that the change in distance between us and the stars as they move around the sky is significant - significant enough for them to recede to some 'vanishing point' as they get close to the horizon, just like the lights on a street going away into the distance.
But this simply doesn't stack up when we look at the stars. The constellations don't change shape at all as they get close to the horizon. The angle between each star appears the same as they lower in the sky before disappearing below the horizon out of sight. If they were so distant that they were reaching a vanishing point then they would get closer and closer together before disappearing. But they don't do that, do they?
In fact, if you have equipment sensitive enough, you can actually measure tiny parallax changes between the stars, as the earth moves around the sun and as the stars themselves move. This has been used to measure the distance between us and distant stars in both our own galaxy and other more distant ones. Indeed, an entire system of measurement, parsecs, is based on this stellar parallax principle. The point to take away is that the perspective changes provide overwhelming evidence that the stars are a long, long away from us - that's why their position with respect to each other doesn't seem to change much at all. Unlike the street lights in my example they aren't hundreds of yards away, they are thousands of light years in the distance, meaning that moving around by a few thousand miles on the surface of earth doesn't change their relative position by any discernible amount.
-
It is arguing that the change in distance between us and the stars as they move around the sky is significant
That is not what it's saying. The vanishing point is a fairly well defined concept. You do not need to substitute it with something that it is not.
-
That is not what it's saying. The vanishing point is a fairly well defined concept. You do not need to substitute it with something that it is not.
Ok, help me out here then. What is it saying?
Why does, in my road/streetlights example, the angle between the streetlights reduce towards the 'vanishing point', but the angle between the stars not reduce?
I can only think of one possible reason, but I'm assuming by the fact you're taking issue with my point that you have an alternative?
-
Ok, help me out here then. What is it saying?
I'm afraid I don't know how to help you. The phrasing used in the Wiki is so intuitive to me that I can't think of a way to rephrase it more clearly. I'm getting the feeling that English might not be your first language, and being an ESL speaker myself I completely sympathise.
My best suggestion is that you have a look at how the vanishing point is defined in optics and the arts. Perhaps you'll find a phrasing that speaks to you?
Why does, in my road/streetlights example, the angle between the streetlights reduce towards the 'vanishing point', but the angle between the stars not reduce?
You misunderstand. You claim there is a contrast where there isn't. The separation between a straight line of points would decrease with distance regardless of the angle between the horizon and the line in question (in other words: the angle between stars *does* appear to decrease, and you have no point of reference to compare this with), as long as it's not being observed dead-on (i.e. 0/x=0 for most values of x). This is a simple consequence of parallax, and is completely independent of any RE vs FE arguments - it's a misunderstanding of basic optics. I can try to help visualise this, but I currently don't understand where your misconception is coming from. You'd have to provide more detail.
In short: if your current assumptions were correct, neither FE nor RE could be correct. In fact, the immediate surroundings of my home couldn't exist. Something is extremely wrong with your suggestions, but without further clarification it's impossible to pinpoint.
-
In short: if your current assumptions were correct, neither FE nor RE could be correct. In fact, the immediate surroundings of my home couldn't exist. Something is extremely wrong with your suggestions, but without further clarification it's impossible to pinpoint.
You've misunderstood what I'm talking about. Let's try some pictures. Consider a street scene, like the one I described:
(http://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/08/streets2_LED.jpg)
Forget about the horizon, forget about any vertical positions, and just look at the apparent width between the successive lampposts. It reduces as they get further away from the observer, even though in reality the posts are equidistant - that, I hope, is a consequence of perspective that we can both agree on - yes? So the azimuth angle subtended at the eyes of our observer, between successive pairs of posts, is getting smaller as the viewing distance increases. Agree?
Now consider a large constellation, such as Orion:
(http://wordpress.mrreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/orion-path.png)
Orion measures roughly 20 degrees tall by 10 degrees wide (note the x-axis on diagrams like this tends to be 'hours' as opposed to degrees, where one hour = 15 degrees). If perspective was playing a role in how we view things close to the horizon then, as it moved from, say, directly above us to being close to the horizon we would expect to see a reduction in size (and indeed a change in shape) of the constellation - agree? But we don't. You can measure Orion anywhere in the sky and, barring minor changes for refraction close to the horizon you will observe the same roughly 10 degree x 20 degree shape.
How does FET explain this anomaly? You can't invoke perspective to explain a phenomenon, such as the stars disappearing below the horizon, if there is no discernible perspective effect on the stars when they are visible as they move around the sky.
[edited due to picture error in first attempt]
-
You've misunderstood what I'm talking about.
I understood you the first time around. Your explanation is a complete mess, and I really don't know how to help you unravel it if you refuse to start working through it.
You can't "forget about the horizon" when discussing the horizon's obstruction of the stars. It's an entirely crucial element of the puzzle. However, this does not mean that the rules of perspective *change* around the horizon.
we would expect to see a reduction in size (and indeed a change in shape) of the constellation - agree?
I don't know how many times or how strongly you need me to say this, but for the fourth time: No, we would not expect that. Your entire explanation relies on that assumption, which seems to have come out of nowhere, and just happens to be nonsense.
-
You can't "forget about the horizon" when discussing the horizon's obstruction of the stars.
I wasn't asking you to do that. I was simply asking you to look at a picture of some streetlamps and agree with me that the azimuth angle between the receding lampposts was reducing.
If the azimuth angle between the lampposts reduces as they become more distant, why doesn't the same thing happen to the stars?
It's a really simple question.
-
If the azimuth angle between the lampposts reduces as they become more distant, why doesn't the same thing happen to the stars?
For a hypothetical scenario in which a number of stars are perfectly aligned, equidistant, and viewed from an appropriate angle - it does.
The problem with such a hypothetical scenario is that it can be easily misinterpreted - as you have demonstrated. The effect you're describing is already occurring, but you're expecting it to apply twice, for reasons unexplained.
-
For a hypothetical scenario in which a number of stars are perfectly aligned, equidistant, and viewed from an appropriate angle - it does.
But you don't need a hypothetical scenario, and you don't need a series of equidistant stars. You just need the same constellation, such as Orion in my example, viewed at two different positions. Look at Orion when it's directly above you and measure the angular width - about 10 degrees. Now wait until it's lower in the sky and measure the width again...10 degrees. Why doesn't the angle change, as it does with the streetlights, if it's moving towards the 'vanishing point', as the wiki asserts?
-
All this "vanishing point" and especially angular resolution talk is completely irrelevant... It does not apply to anything PRODUCING OR REFLECTING LIGHT.
So I get it... an object will eventually vanish when it is far enough away from the human eye. However, if said object was a Laser and twice the distance of the "vanishing point" away or at half the angular resolution the human eye can see, then laser was turned on and aimed at the observers eye... the observer can then see it.
My video is of the SUN... a light emitting object. Vanishing point and angular resolution are irrelevant.
-
I do wonder if Pete has ever watched the stars much. Has he witnessed Orion's belt become Orion's watchstrap as it sets in the west? Has he seen Castor and Pollux in Gemini increase their social distancing as they rise from the east? Did he notice Cygnus become a Sparrow as it drops in the northwest from the UK or Draco shrink to a Gecko?
The stars don't become further apart as they rise from the eastern horizon, nor do they come closer together as they vanish over the west. Anyone familiar with astronomy and stellar navigation understands that from observation and common experience, and quoting Rowbotham (as the wiki does) won't change the night sky.
-
But you don't need a hypothetical scenario, and you don't need a series of equidistant stars.
You're the one who presented it. I'm telling you it's unnecessary, and that you confused yourself by relying on it.
Why doesn't the angle change
Because there is absolutely nothing that would cause it to change, and your expectation continues to be rooted in something you refuse to specify.
It does not apply to anything PRODUCING OR REFLECTING LIGHT.
A body that neither produces nor reflects light is not a body that will be seen, in most circumstances. I hope that much is clear, at least?
However, if said object was a Laser and twice the distance of the "vanishing point" away or at half the angular resolution the human eye can see, then laser was turned on and aimed at the observers eye... the observer can then see it.
The Sun is not a laser, and anything that's beyond the vanishing point will not be seen.
Has he witnessed Orion's belt become Orion's watchstrap as it sets in the west?
Yes, Longitube, let's think about this one very hard. Have I personally witnessed something that I repeatedly and emphatically state does not happen? I have every faith in your cognitive ability.
-
... The separation between a straight line of points would decrease with distance regardless of the angle between the horizon and the line in question (in other words: the angle between stars *does* appear to decrease ...
My apologies: I assumed you meant something by the above quoted statement. I'm trying to imagine how the sky as described in the wiki would look with stars a few thousand miles above us moving over our heads, how they would look as they move in the course of a night. It doesn't square with what we see in the actual sky. Constellations a few thousand miles above would most certainly change in size and the angle between these stars change as they passed from horizon to horizon, only in the real night sky they don't.
-
Because there is absolutely nothing that would cause it to change, and your expectation continues to be rooted in something you refuse to specify.
Well, it's great that you've actually addressed some of the questions I asked of you - thank you. So you agree that the lampposts in the picture display reducing azimuth angle as they recede into the distance, and you also agree that star constellations don't exhibit this behaviour as they get lower in the night sky.
So that then raises the question: what is different about the stars? Why, if their position in the sky is dictated by perspective effects as the wiki states, do they not seem to exhibit the other perspective effects that we see elsewhere?
RE proponents like myself would say that's simply because they are thousands of light years away from us on here on our oblate spheroid, rotating earth, in orbit around the sun, and that the position of the stars and other celestial bodies is entirely consistent with this.
FET proponents need to come up with an explanation. Over to you.
-
My apologies: I assumed you meant something by the above quoted statement.
I did.
and you also agree that star constellations don't exhibit this behaviour as they get lower in the night sky.
For the fifth time: the idea that this effect would magically be applied twice to star constellations is nonsense. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing - your statement is so incomprehensible that I'm not assigning it a truth value.
So that then raises the question: what is different about the stars?
Nothing. You're the only person who states that something is different, but you're refusing to clarify why you think so, and you demand an explanation for a contrast that isn't there.
FET proponents need to come up with an explanation. Over to you.
I'm gonna give you one last chance to respond to what's already been said to you five times. Afterwards, I'll accept that you either don't understand English, or are deliberately wasting everyone's time.
-
It does not apply to anything PRODUCING OR REFLECTING LIGHT.
A body that neither produces nor reflects light is not a body that will be seen, in most circumstances. I hope that much is clear, at least?
However, if said object was a Laser and twice the distance of the "vanishing point" away or at half the angular resolution the human eye can see, then laser was turned on and aimed at the observers eye... the observer can then see it.
The Sun is not a laser, and anything that's beyond the vanishing point will not be seen.
Objects which cannot be seen with the naked eye in ambient light become visible when they either emit light or reflect light toward the observer. This is the principle of the heliograph, a reflecting mirror which, when angled toward the observer, can be seen at distances far in excess of the distance at which the observer could discern the mirror undirected.
How would one define what is beyond the vanishing point?
-
Objects which cannot be seen with the naked eye in ambient light become visible when they either emit light or reflect light toward the observer.
Entirely irrelevant for this discussion. Also: no shit, when you change the properties of a body, its properties change.
How would one define what is beyond the vanishing point?
Familiarise yourself with the basic terms of the debate before joining it. I'm not here to be your remedial high school tutor.
-
For the fifth time: the idea that this effect would magically be applied twice to star constellations is nonsense. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing - your statement is so incomprehensible that I'm not assigning it a truth value.
Who said anything about twice? The wiki says:
In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.
If two stars are 10 degrees apart when they are above you, and if perspective is causing them to 'descend into the horizon' as they 'recede' then, just like the lampposts, we would expect that 10 degree separation to change. FET is utterly hopeless on this - the above quote completely ignores the fact the height of the lampposts also appears to reduce, but yet the vertical separation of the stars remains the same, just as it ignores the the issue I've already described regarding the lateral separation. The wiki, and many of the arguments on here, are just a confused mess of arguments about perspective, vanishing points and EA, oblivious to the fact that there is no combination of these things that would retain the size and shape of the constellations as they move around the sky.
So that then raises the question: what is different about the stars?
Nothing. You're the only person who states that something is different, but you're refusing to clarify why you think so, and you demand an explanation for a contrast that isn't there.
I'm not the only person - you yourself have agreed that the stars retain their angular separation but the lampposts don't, and other than vague, non-specific references to the wiki, you haven't actually explained the difference at all. You can criticise my arguments all you like, but anybody reading this thread will see that I've pointed an obvious flaw in the FET argument, and shown with simple diagrams that there is a massive problem. You can assert that this is 'incomprehensible' all you like, but your lack of comprehension is not my problem.
-
If two stars are 10 degrees apart when they are above you, and if perspective is causing them to 'descend into the horizon' as they 'recede' then, just like the lampposts, we would expect that 10 degree separation to change.
For the sixth time: this continues not to be the case. You have once again failed to explain why you think otherwise, merely stating that the effect would magically be applied a second time as the stars approach the horizon.
I'm not the only person - you yourself have agreed that the stars retain their angular separation but the lampposts don't
I didn't. You claimed I did multiple times, and each time I responded by pointing this out. Let's be consistent and say it again: I do not claim this, you are the only one who does, for reasons you refuse to explain.
You are blatantly trying to waste our time. Let me make it clear that I won't allow you to continue. If you want to discuss this, do. If you want to continue restating the same thing and complaining that FET isn't compatible with your incoherent misunderstanding of optics, it's not gonna happen. Since you're already sitting on two warnings for trying to disrupt other threads, consider this your third and final one.