8621

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: May 01, 2016, 12:45:58 AM »

Beam divergence occurs because light shines in every direction from a light source. Because it's confined to emit from a one sided light, the "laser beam" will actually be a very narrow cone that spreads out because all of the light in this cone is moving in a straight line. It's not as if the light will start bending midway through transmission. Say instead that I took a single photon and fired it in a direction, never will that photon change direction unless it is reflected or refracted by other outside influence.

The phenomena of beam divergence is certainly a curiosity, particularly because a laser beam is supposed to be straight due to photons between a series of mirrors and a glass amplifier to produce an extremely bright and straight beam of light. It may be argued that some of the photons are not straight, but then the divergence should have a central hot spot as the beam diverges.

8622

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: April 30, 2016, 10:49:11 PM »

The model the Greeks proposed is clearly wrong when it comes to things that are far away. The simple fact is that the lines touch. There may be varying explanations for why they touch.

It might have something to do with resolution. It might also be more than that. For instance, if we shine a laser beam at the point on railroad tracks where they appear to touch in the distance, the beam will widen and touch both of the tracks at the same time.

From http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset --

Beam Divergence

This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.



From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:

    "The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
    the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
    aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."

The light is broadcasted towards the small scene  in the distance and widens appropriately to cover that area it sees. Under a perfect universe the laser beam should only be able to touch only one of the tracks at a time when it reaches the destination. However, the beam is seen to widen significantly, easily covering both tracks and an area of landscape. It seems to suggest that, if the small laser beam diameter can cover a large area, the squishing of the tracks to a single point is more than a resolution limitation of the eye.

8623

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: April 30, 2016, 10:31:43 PM »

The only one who would be in on it is the astronaut. The other people researching things like better radar systems could be performing legitimate research for military uses beyond their clearance level. NASA attracts the best and the brightest, and the military has constantly fought Congress to keep NASA alive to research technologies for its uses.

Over the years the military has used NASA as a resource to research hardened electronics, radio technologies, extremely strong light weight metals, robotics, jet engines... NASA has never been about honest science. It was fathered by the military-industrial complex as a show to the world that the US could put ICBMs into orbit and bomb foreign nations at the push of a button.

8624

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: April 30, 2016, 10:08:14 PM »

Well first of all, Greek math states that they DO appear to touch and that they don't physically touch, not the other way around.

No, they don't. We never learn that in Geometry class. The Ancient Greek geometry math assumes that we live in a continuous universe where resolution is infinite and where perfect circles could exist. The model says that two parallel lines should never touch in such a perfect universe.

However, two parallel lines do seem to touch, perhaps due to several other factors, and therefore, it follows that the model is not an accurate reflection of reality, especially at extreme distances.

8625

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: April 30, 2016, 04:01:17 PM »

If we see that they appear touch, and the Greek's continuous universe math that they should not appear to touch, that is evidence suggesting that they are wrong in their theories of perspective. It is certainly not evidence that they are correct.

I am not arguing that the lines physically touch, only that they appear to, which goes hand-in-hand with the belief that the sun can appear to touch the earth without it physically doing so. The effect of two parallel lines touching is more evidence towards a Flat Earth model where the celestial bodies can touch the earth than it is evidence for a Greek universe where parallel lines should never touch.

Under the "appearances can be deceiving" mantra you are promoting, where things things don't "ACTUALLY touch" you are also arguing against the physics of your own model, agreeing with the Flat Earth position on this matter that how things appear with perspective may not be how they are.

8626

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: April 30, 2016, 04:26:36 AM »

The math of the ancient Greeks says that two parallel lines should never touch. But, as admitted, they visibly do touch. How is that a proof that the Greeks were correct in their world model? That is direct evidence that they were wrong about their world model.

8627

Flat Earth Community / Re: How we see the sun as setting while it has moving away?

« on: April 27, 2016, 11:15:31 PM »

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

Aren't we lucky then that we had radiosondes

The first true radiosonde that sent precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name "radiosonde" and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929.

From Wikipedia Radiosonde History

You might get a bit of education in this area by reading up a bit. Start with elemantary stuff like: Windows to the Universe, Weather Balloons

These relayed information back about the upper atmosphere, and I do believe that they found that the atmospheric pressure is very low up there. A fact that has been verified by sounding rockets, high flying aircraft and manned balloons.

Since the refractive index of air at Standard Temperature and Pressure is only 1.000277 (and rapidly falls with altitude), you can forget about any magical refraction appering to lower the sun. Besides it is in the wrong direction, it makes the sun appear very slightly higher (up to about 30' of arc).

Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!

High atmosphere != space.

Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?

8628

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 27, 2016, 11:06:03 PM »

There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.

For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.

FYI, this is the debate section of the forum. You completely dismissed the evidence given in the original post. That's fine. But you seem to completely dodge giving any reason WHY you dismissed this evidence. And you seem to be avoiding giving out any details of your counter-theory. This isn't very conducive to debate. If anything, this is an indication that you don't have a viable counter-theory.

What evidence in the original post? A small diagram isn't evidence. That doesn't tell us how perspective behaves at large distances.

I asked for a name of the scientist who studied perspective and was met with silence. I asked what evidence there was that perspective works in the way the ancient greeks described and I got silence. There is no evidence for me to refute.

8629

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 27, 2016, 11:00:25 PM »

You know, we have our own method of measuring the distance to other stars.  It's called stellar parallax.  Perhaps you'd like to explain how your triangulation works?

The observations in the stellar parallax experiments are taken at different parts of the year. It is explained in FET by having the stars move northward or southward over the course of the year, just like the sun.

Emphasis added:

There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.

How much variation in height do you think there is?  Many times, in many threads, I have seen you claiming the support of the wiki's "approximately" term.  Just how approximate is the 3000 miles figure?  Plus or minus how much, ballpark?  A few solar or lunar diameters?  Half the distance from here to there?  I ask because I'm curious to play with the geometry for the uppermost lunar position and the lowermost solar position, to see if any arrangement of these celestial objects could give us the moon phases we see.

Unknown at present.

8630

Flat Earth Community / Re: How we see the sun as setting while it has moving away?

« on: April 27, 2016, 07:16:22 PM »

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

8631

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 27, 2016, 06:21:14 PM »

Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow. 
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?

They're not at the same altitude.

Excuse me?

It was determined via triangulation that the celestial bodies are about the same height as the sun. We have documentation of our method of triangulation, but it is mostly in specific regards to the sun. It was found that the celestial bodies behave similarly, and so they were lumped into the same altitude of the sun. For specifics of the triangulation method, look for the article on the Sun's Distance on the Wiki on the front page.

What evidence is there that the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth?

There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.

For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.

8632

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 26, 2016, 07:49:38 PM »

Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow. 
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?

They're not at the same altitude.

8633

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 25, 2016, 03:05:50 AM »

The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.

Yes, the white water wakes do widen with distance, but nowhere near as fast as the bow-wave does.

There have been studies on it and while it varies a bit with wind direction, typically it varies fairly slowly and might be be
100 m wide 1000 m from the ship, and
180 m wide 6000 m from the ship.

These figures are from 100s of actual measurements on a very large cruise ship, though not the P & O one in the photo.

But, the only inference I made from the wake photo was that was not zero width at the visible horizon.

How about simply posting an appropriate example rather than waves behind a ship?

8634

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Teachers deserve low pay

« on: April 24, 2016, 01:08:04 AM »

For my entire life I've heard teachers complain that they get paid far too little for teaching. They are defended by many as heroes who are educating our children, who gave us our own education, and should be paid highly for this.

But what are teachers, really? At the lowest levels, preschool and kindergarten, teachers are little more than babysitters who read children stories. At the elementary, middle, high school, and college level the job role is essentially the same. Teachers remain babysitters who merely read children different books, whether it's a story about Martin Luther King, or about the periodic table. Other authors wrote those books, and did the research behind it. The teacher didn't do any of those things. The teacher is simply repeating the teachings of others. Most of the time they have their students do homework from the book and use exam handouts from the publisher (who graciously does not watermark the handouts). So why do they deserve large amounts of money for what is essentially a babysitting job?

In addition, teachers are frankly the losers of academia. Rather than contributing to an academic profession like their respected counterparts, they are reading stories to children. It's pathetic. Why should they be paid highly for that?

8635

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 23, 2016, 08:33:01 PM »

The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.

8636

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 21, 2016, 11:30:29 PM »

We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.

Please explain how this actually occurs?
If the sun/moon are spheres (as declared by your wiki), but do not sink, how are they both observed to sink, illuminate the underneath of the clouds and appear as circles as they sink below the horizon?

The sun is also going behind a lot of atmosphere as it recedes. When it is near the horizon it is already dimmed by an order of magnitude than when it overhead at noonday. You can look directly at it without squinting. After it merges into the horizon the sky is still relatively illuminated. It takes several hours for the blackness of night to set in, which indicates that the opacity of the atmosphere has increased significantly.

The clouds appear to illuminate from the "bottom" because the sun's rays are hitting the backside of that cloud at a more horizontal angle. You are standing beneath the cloud, so you are only seeing that back end which is illuminated, which looks like the "bottom" since the backside is further from you than the frontside of the cloud.

8637

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 21, 2016, 11:19:17 PM »

Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!

Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.

You claimed "Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!"

Can't you see the difference! You said "perspective lines appear to merge" sure they do appear to converge!
But then you go on to say "in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge"!

There is no contradiction! The "math", as you call it, does not say that they will never appear to merge it says they will never merge. So no I do not agree at all. That word "never" is so crucial.

I think you are still trying to prove those Greek Philosophers wrong! But, guess what, the only things that have survived are those that have stood the test of time, and Euclid has been one. He hasn't been proved wrong in this area, but different geometries (spaces) have been developed. So much else from that era has dropped by the wayside.

Seems that your philosophy is a bit like

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'

Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.

We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.

What do you disagree with?

8638

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 21, 2016, 05:53:10 AM »

Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!

Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.

8639

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 21, 2016, 05:50:45 AM »

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

How do we agree? Your take is the sun/moon sink below the surface of a FE. This is mathematically impossible. You can keep playing at semantics, but the math proves prospective as applied to FE will NEVER be possible. You know it, I know it and the rest of RE knows it.

We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.

You agree that perspective lines will appear to merge, but actually do not.

I do not see where the contradiction is.

8640

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 20, 2016, 10:36:49 PM »

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!