The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Xfires on November 13, 2017, 02:06:21 AM
-
From what I have read over the last three hours the definition of proof very drastic from thread to thread and from person to person.
-The claim that The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on a Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.
has very little evidence for it anywhere and yet FET thinks it is fact. I haven't found any evidence for this claim yet. Tom Bishop claims that any claim is his to prove and that without proof it can't be treated as a true statement. This same standard does not seem to be upheld by many of the FET.
-My question is twofold, First what evidence is there for the FET that is also held to the same level of scrutiny and is proven by science(For science to work you must hold peer reviews even if you believe the same thing) and Second , Why does the RET have to prove basic knowledge as fact with many, many different forms of evidence from different sources but the supporters FET do not.
This is my first post to this form so feel free to leave tips that will help me convey my message, also if anyone would like me to a few of the claims and proofs the FET use as basic beliefes tha would be awsome because everything on the wiki is baseless and without any true documentation
-
The particular quote you gave gives several empirical examples. Assertions are not made without basis. No one said that it was "fact". A lot of what we believe is merely the empirical conclusion to the world around us, as opposed to the hypothetical possibilities that Round Earthers believe.
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
-
The wiki, as far as I'm concerned, is only useful for getting a general idea of what FET is. As you noted, it is completely devoid of any proof and is merely a bunch of statements. Further, not every REer believes all of the stuff in the wiki. It's really a mess.
Proving things is almost impossible. Tom, who posted above, is notorious for demanding levels of proof that simply aren't available to your average person. Now, if it is something that he feels benefits FET, he will gladly accept it with no proof. I've also seen him post several youtube videos as proof of something. ::) My gut feeling is that demand for proof is really the only thing FEers have to defend against some really good points being made that invalidate FET. GPS is a great example. Tom likes to demand that we prove it isn't using "round Earth assumptions." The obvious answer is, if it is using round Earth assumptions and it works to an amazing degree of accuracy, it must be using the proper assumptions. So yeah, if you're asked to prove something to a level that's not reasonable, you're probably winning the argument.
-
The wiki, as far as I'm concerned, is only useful for getting a general idea of what FET is. As you noted, it is completely devoid of any proof and is merely a bunch of statements. Further, not every REer believes all of the stuff in the wiki. It's really a mess.
Proving things is almost impossible. Tom, who posted above, is notorious for demanding levels of proof that simply aren't available to your average person. Now, if it is something that he feels benefits FET, he will gladly accept it with no proof. I've also seen him post several youtube videos as proof of something. ::) My gut feeling is that demand for proof is really the only thing FEers have to defend against some really good points being made that invalidate FET. GPS is a great example. Tom likes to demand that we prove it isn't using "round Earth assumptions." The obvious answer is, if it is using round Earth assumptions and it works to an amazing degree of accuracy, it must be using the proper assumptions. So yeah, if you're asked to prove something to a level that's not reasonable, you're probably winning the argument.
I wouldn't make a claim that a mystery device is completely accurate. But you guys don't have a problem with making those sort of claims. Therefore I have nothing to prove, aside from the simple and empirical experiences some of our assertions are made from, like "birds descend into the horizon," that no one even bothers to question me on, and you have almost everything to prove.
-
There are two levels of required proof. If you're a flat earther, you can state claims without any real evidence or common sense, and they are taken as gospel. E.g. We don't know the distance from Paris to New York or the southern hemisphere hasn't been reliably mapped.
If you're a round earther, you can state the bleeding obvious and then receive ridiculous demands of proof. E.g.
RE : GPS proves that the earth is round.
FE : I don't believe in GPS - prove it's accurate.
RE : It's used by millions of people all over the planet all the time. You have it on your phone. You can see it works.
FE : That's not proof. I demand real proof.
-
There are two levels of required proof. If you're a flat earther, you can state claims without any real evidence or common sense, and they are taken as gospel. E.g. We don't know the distance from Paris to New York or the southern hemisphere hasn't been reliably mapped.
We have to prove that we don't know something? ???
If you're a round earther, you can state the bleeding obvious and then receive ridiculous demands of proof. E.g.
RE : GPS proves that the earth is round.
FE : I don't believe in GPS - prove it's accurate.
RE : It's used by millions of people all over the planet all the time. You have it on your phone. You can see it works.
FE : That's not proof. I demand real proof.
You claim you know something, and so you should provide evidence for this knowledge.
-
See ! I told you.
It's 5834 km from Paris to New York. Planes fly it every day. We have maps, used by everybody, and they work. It's a fact, to everybody expect Tom.
GPS works - everybody knows it. Even Tom knows it as he can see a blue dot showing where he is on the map on his phone, but he doesn't accept it.
I'm sure everybody can see the ludicrousness of the situation. Well, perhaps everybody expect Tom.....
-
What do you have against providing evidence for your knowledge?
-
What do you have against providing evidence for your knowledge?
I provided overwhelming empirical evidence above. What have you got against believing it ?
-
What do you have against providing evidence for your knowledge?
I provided overwhelming empirical evidence above. What have you got against believing it ?
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of empiricism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
-
Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.
Now stop sidetracking the conversation and tell me why you don’t accept The fact that something has been used by millions of people for many years without any trouble as proof of something ?
-
The particular quote you gave gives several empirical examples. Assertions are not made without basis. No one said that it was "fact". A lot of what we believe is merely the empirical conclusion to the world around us, as opposed to the hypothetical possibilities that Round Earthers believe.
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
All of your "empirical evidence" listed here though is predicted on the Earth being flat. If the Earth isn't flat you have no evidence for your perspective. If the Earth isn't flat, you have no evidence for the light from a lighthouse not stretching forever. Every one of these is based upon begging the question. You presume the Earth to be flat, and ascribe how things work based upon that assumption. You then use those "proofs" to assert the Earth is flat. You have zero positive evidence that describes only a flat Earth. Your standard of evidence is far lower for something supporting a flat Earth than refuting it. Just look through Rowbotham's work, he's a model for many poorly documented experiments, and objections without strong shown reason for them.
-
Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.
Now stop sidetracking the conversation and tell me why you don’t accept The fact that something has been used by millions of people for many years without any trouble as proof of something ?
Those people didn't actually verify the numbers. You are making an appeal to popularity fallacy. How do you know that the GPS distance from Paris to New York isn't off by 100 miles?
All of your "empirical evidence" listed here though is predicted on the Earth being flat. If the Earth isn't flat you have no evidence for your perspective. If the Earth isn't flat, you have no evidence for the light from a lighthouse not stretching forever. Every one of these is based upon begging the question. You presume the Earth to be flat, and ascribe how things work based upon that assumption. You then use those "proofs" to assert the Earth is flat. You have zero positive evidence that describes only a flat Earth. Your standard of evidence is far lower for something supporting a flat Earth than refuting it. Just look through Rowbotham's work, he's a model for many poorly documented experiments, and objections without strong shown reason for them.
Empirical evidence IS positive evidence. It is the most powerful evidence you can have. You keep trying to convince us of illusions and such, but you seem to have a hard time actually demonstrating your wild claims.
Our standard of evidence is just fine. The person with the claim provides the evidence. You are expected to defend your claims. If you want to challenge our claims of descending birds in return, that is fine. We are willing to do that.
-
Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.
Now stop sidetracking the conversation and tell me why you don’t accept The fact that something has been used by millions of people for many years without any trouble as proof of something ?
Those people didn't actually verify the numbers. You are making an appeal to popularity fallacy. How do you know that the GPS distance from Paris to New York isn't off by 100 miles?
All of your "empirical evidence" listed here though is predicted on the Earth being flat. If the Earth isn't flat you have no evidence for your perspective. If the Earth isn't flat, you have no evidence for the light from a lighthouse not stretching forever. Every one of these is based upon begging the question. You presume the Earth to be flat, and ascribe how things work based upon that assumption. You then use those "proofs" to assert the Earth is flat. You have zero positive evidence that describes only a flat Earth. Your standard of evidence is far lower for something supporting a flat Earth than refuting it. Just look through Rowbotham's work, he's a model for many poorly documented experiments, and objections without strong shown reason for them.
Empirical evidence IS positive evidence. It is the most powerful evidence you can have. You keep trying to convince us of illusions and such, but you seem to have a hard time actually demonstrating your wild claims.
Our standard of evidence is just fine. The person with the claim provides the evidence. You are expected to defend your claims. If you want to challenge our claims of descending birds in return, that is fine. We are willing to do that.
GPS provides location which are accurate to a few metres, the WGS84 model gives us the shape of the earth to a known accuracy. What is your point about knowing a distance? We use known distances all the time for navigation, what model do you use?
'You' have no evidence that the WGS84 model is wrong, unless you would like to provide it here.
As you know - 'WGS84 is an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed terrestrial reference system and geodetic datum. WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.'
-
You need to provide evidence that your claim is right, no one needs to prove you wrong. The person with the claim provides the evidence. If you bring a claim here, you are expected to defend it and provide basic evidence for your claim.
-
There are two levels of required proof. If you're a flat earther, you can state claims without any real evidence or common sense, and they are taken as gospel. E.g. We don't know the distance from Paris to New York or the southern hemisphere hasn't been reliably mapped.
If you're a round earther, you can state the bleeding obvious and then receive ridiculous demands of proof. E.g.
RE : GPS proves that the earth is round.
FE : I don't believe in GPS - prove it's accurate.
RE : It's used by millions of people all over the planet all the time. You have it on your phone. You can see it works.
FE : That's not proof. I demand real proof.
I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !
-
I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !
Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.
You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge" we should automatically eat it all up as truth.
-
I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !
Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.
You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge," we should automatically eat it all up as truth.
WGS84 has documentation that shows how it was produced by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Given how we navigate across the world there is no reason to doubt its accuracy.
If you challenge it I suggest you contact NGA directly with your concerns. It is they who provide the definition and the data.
We are aware you have provided no alternative reference system, or even a proposal as to how you would produce one.
-
I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !
Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.
You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge" we should automatically eat it all up as truth.
See, I told you he’d have some ridiculous reason.
You can throw in some personal experience too. I was a radio office on merchant vessels in the 80s and am quite capable of measuring distances on a map and using the ship’s speed to work out etas. We were usually on time, and when we weren’t, we knew why.
-
I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !
Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.
You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge" we should automatically eat it all up as truth.
That's my point, your claim that "birds descend into the horizon" is only my perspective and that holds true whether you believe in the flat earth or the round earth. Therefore it makes very little sense to use it as a reason to believe in the flat earth.
-Furthermore, your claim that we need to show you evidence that GPS works are very shallow. This is because people in the scientific community have no reason to prove something that is already known as fact so it is almost impossible to give you evidence that you will reach your impossible standard.
-How about this, please inform me to how the Coriolis effect and the jet stream would be possible using the FET. You must show your evidence and research that drew you to this conclusion otherwise it is just an unproven hypothesis.
I know this is not the actual research papers but they tend to cost money.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/
https://www.livescience.com/27825-jet-stream.html
-
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
Wait...what? How does "birds descent into the horizon" prove the flat earth? Quite the contrary, I'd say. The RET has a perfectly reasonable explanation for this fact...so even if it is also provable in FET, it doesn't in any way demonstrate the flatness of the Earth.
There really are very VERY few observations that you claim to have made that are not fully explainable in terms of RET. The few that do (the Rowbotham Bedford Levels thing for example) have been repeated and produced the opposite result...showing them to be at best inconclusive.
I have yet to see a SINGLE piece of evidence that shows something that would only be true if the Earth was flat...not a single one.
On the other hand, I've posted at least a dozen things that FET cannot explain and which resulted in no FE'er even trying to explain. Just today, I present clear, simple evidence that your bipolar map is junk. Do you immediately jump in with a clear explanation of how you CAN explain this? No - you just nit-pick the PVoutput.org results...which aren't even important to my proof.
Other evidence - such as how photons can travel in straight lines and yet still produce a sunset resulted in you making the bold claim that you would start a new thread to fully explain this issue - and then completely failing to do so...TWICE.
The only sane conclusion here is that you simply don't have evidence to countervail the things that FET cannot explain - and you have no evidence for the things that you say RET couldn't explain.
If this was "tres.org" rather than "tfes.org" - what things would you be posting there to demonstrate that RET isn't true? I don't think you'd have a damned thing to say. You have ZERO solid evidence.
-
Man this thread really proves my point. Prove GPS works...lol. Simple, I geocache occasionally. I take Lat/long info and use a GPS app on my phone. Using that info, I am able to find the cache without much trouble. I also know the speed is accurate because I've played around with the app on the highway where it shows my speed. It always matches my speedometer. None of this will be proof enough for Tom, which I'm fine with. He is just playing games because he knows he can't actually win the debate.
Further, all this empiricism stuff is nonsense. A human's senses are shite at determining the real nature of the world. It's fine for simple stuff, but that's about it. One need only look at the electromagnetic spectrum for proof of that. (oh wait, I'm guessing I have to prove it exists...) We can only detect a small segment of the total spectrum.
-
The particular quote you gave gives several empirical examples. Assertions are not made without basis. No one said that it was "fact". A lot of what we believe is merely the empirical conclusion to the world around us, as opposed to the hypothetical possibilities that Round Earthers believe.
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
Also, as the party making the huge claim against all the science that we have believed ever since the Greek times, I think you have the much higher burden of proof. If you had common sense you would create a page where I can see all of your claims and the science and proof behind them.
-Here a few counterpoints real quick.
1) You claim that NASA is propagating false information but how do you explain every other spaces program and independent company that uses space travel.
2) You claim that GPS is false because it uses RET assumptions. This is a very dumb thing to claim because all you are really doing is proving that the RET assumptions lead us to the truth. This is because GPS has been tested by millions of people around the world. You ask us for evidence but you don't except the fact that you can go on your phone right now and check your location using GPS.
-
All of your "empirical evidence" listed here though is predicted on the Earth being flat. If the Earth isn't flat you have no evidence for your perspective. If the Earth isn't flat, you have no evidence for the light from a lighthouse not stretching forever. Every one of these is based upon begging the question. You presume the Earth to be flat, and ascribe how things work based upon that assumption. You then use those "proofs" to assert the Earth is flat. You have zero positive evidence that describes only a flat Earth. Your standard of evidence is far lower for something supporting a flat Earth than refuting it. Just look through Rowbotham's work, he's a model for many poorly documented experiments, and objections without strong shown reason for them.
Empirical evidence IS positive evidence. It is the most powerful evidence you can have. You keep trying to convince us of illusions and such, but you seem to have a hard time actually demonstrating your wild claims.
Our standard of evidence is just fine. The person with the claim provides the evidence. You are expected to defend your claims. If you want to challenge our claims of descending birds in return, that is fine. We are willing to do that.
PLEASE stop cherry picking what I'm saying. I said: Positive evidence for a strictly flat Earth. You have NOTHING that can be explained only upon a flat Earth. In fact many of your explanations are based upon "The Earth is flat, X can be seen to be happening, so Y must be true!" When Y is anything but true for every other known scenario. But I'm not about to pull this off into another sunset discussion. Suffice to say YOU are the one making the claim the Earth is flat, but fail to see the 'evidence' you are presenting is wholly insufficient. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" after all. I would challenge you to offer any evidence you feel holds up to any form of rigor, and I bet I can show how the conclusion can't be trusted because of not enough rigor in what has been reported, or because of assumptions without evidence.
-
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
I gave it an honest shot, but I can't find any videos of birds descending into the horizon. I always lose sight of the birds well above the horizon.
Do you have any evidence of the hypothesis that birds descend into the horizon?
-
What’s the relevance of birds descending into the horizon ?
-
There is no relevance in birds descending to the horizon. It is merely a a simple statement that Tom can make then sit and watch the REs flapping around and getting frustrated at his ability to accept evidence on anything RE. As I have said elsewhere, this whole forum and Tom's flat earth postulations are just the intellectual entertainment for an intelligent man who knows as well as every other thinking person here that the earth is a globe. I is very noticeable that as soon as any debate gets technical or scientific, only Tom continues the discussion with clever flim flamming. He is a master at it and I'm sure gains great amusement from it as I do reading it. I'm sure that most of the REs also know this and enjoy the sparring as much as he does.
It would be nice to hear that there are some serious FEs who are professionals and with a good background knowledge and real world experience getting involved in technical discussions apart from Tom. Perhaps members who are pilots, offshore sailors, meteorologists etc. Sadly I am afraid there aren't any ::)
Roger
-
Okay so the sun is now a lighthouse spot light....a little out there but sort of plausable if FET is real. Can someone please explain several things, how do we stay put on Earth? Even if the Earth is flat we need some sort of gravity to stay on Earth. Otherwise we would be floating around space like they do in space. Also if Earth is flat does that mean the other planets in our solar system are too? If not why are we (Earth) the only flat planet? Does the same apply to the Moon, is that flat? And the Sun?
Also why can we only see one side of Earth in space at a time? Surely the Sun would produce enough light to see at least the outline of Earth in space??
-
They’ve got gravity covered. It’s universal acceleration. Supposedly the Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s. That’s fair enough, it would be indistinguishable from gravity. However, it doesn’t explain why the atmosphere doesn’t get blown off the edge of the disc, unless there is a 50+ mile high wall around the edge. It doesn’t explain why there are measurable but small variations in gravity over the planet, and so on.
-
Okay so the sun is now a lighthouse spot light....a little out there but sort of plausable if FET is real. Can someone please explain several things, how do we stay put on Earth? Even if the Earth is flat we need some sort of gravity to stay on Earth. Otherwise we would be floating around space like they do in space.
FES here believes in Universal acceleration. At a basic level it nicely explains 'gravity' although they attempt to account for anomolies with 'celestial gravitation' (note not the same as gravity) which is iffy at best.
Also if Earth is flat does that mean the other planets in our solar system are too? If not why are we (Earth) the only flat planet? Does the same apply to the Moon, is that flat? And the Sun?
"Earth isn't a planet" is the reason the Earth is flat and nothing else we observe is. Usually 'backed up' by "Why should the center of intelligent observation NOT be unique?" or some variation on the fact that Earth is - presently - rather unique in some way in the universe, so why should it be the same as everything else.
Also why can we only see one side of Earth in space at a time? Surely the Sun would produce enough light to see at least the outline of Earth in space??
Space travel is a hoax, all images from space are fake. The 'edge' that can be seen in some high altitude videos is just the edge of the spotlight sun.
Discussing any of these more in depth should really be done in their own thread(s) or in ones already about them so I'll leave off with just answering your questions to the best of my understanding of what the FE hypothesis says.
-
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.
Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.
Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.
Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.
-
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.
Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.
Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.
Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.
Calling someone and asking if it is light does not prove that 50% of the earth is illuminated.
I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.
-
Man this thread really proves my point. Prove GPS works...lol. Simple, I geocache occasionally. I take Lat/long info and use a GPS app on my phone. Using that info, I am able to find the cache without much trouble. I also know the speed is accurate because I've played around with the app on the highway where it shows my speed. It always matches my speedometer. None of this will be proof enough for Tom, which I'm fine with. He is just playing games because he knows he can't actually win the debate.
Further, all this empiricism stuff is nonsense. A human's senses are shite at determining the real nature of the world. It's fine for simple stuff, but that's about it. One need only look at the electromagnetic spectrum for proof of that. (oh wait, I'm guessing I have to prove it exists...) We can only detect a small segment of the total spectrum.
Empiricism isn't based on eyesight or vision, it's based on what we actually experience. There are ways for us to experience Infra-Red and other spectrum. There is not a real way for us to experience something like "gravitons".
-
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.
Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.
Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.
Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.
Calling someone and asking if it is light does not prove that 50% of the earth is illuminated.
I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.
Sorry. You are right. It does not prove that. It would take multiple people calling and multiple people answering throughout the world to take this project on. But, it can be done. And we can prove if it is light by using video calls, such as Skype or FaceTime.
And for the record, I believe you owe me an answer on great circle sailing/ Mercator sailing.
-
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.
Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.
Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.
Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.
Calling someone and asking if it is light does not prove that 50% of the earth is illuminated.
I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.
It's not lit 50%, 100% of the time, there are a few times the moon's shadow blocks a bit.
Simple stuff Tom
-
Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.
Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.
Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.
Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.
Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.
Calling someone and asking if it is light does not prove that 50% of the earth is illuminated.
I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.
No Tom - I do not need "50% of the earth is illuminated" to make these proofs. Even if the earth were (say) 40% illuminated or 60%, this image would look pretty much as it does now:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/sunlightGMT12.jpg)
No matter how you slice it - at midnight GMT you need a dark patch in the center of your map - and an annular ring of light around it. This is true on any day of the year - and regardless of the Day/Night mix.
Where is your sun when it's midnight GMT? You pick a place...any place you think might be right. Is this going to look like a "flashlight"?
Bear in mind that your claims for how perspective makes sunsets work also demands that the sun is at whatever the "vanishing point" distance is from the eye. That means that the region of sunlight should be circular.
Really - how are you going to get out of this bind? Certainly complaining about 50% sunlight at the equinox doesn't help you out at all.
-
You claim you know something, and so you should provide evidence for this knowledge.
I have used my GPS successfully, accurate to within minutes (traffic and AutoBahn speeds making absolute perfection impossible) in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, The Netherlands, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, France, Australia..
I have used paper maps with equal success in various African nations and Canadian prairies all of which conform to the distances and dimensions found on Google maps.
This is proof that both Google maps is accurate and relates to the OS maps and that GPS matches the two. These are based on a round planet and it ALL fits.
Furthermore my many flights around the globe confirm these distances (via flight times and in-flight displays). The views from the plans windows confirm the land/sea expected by the given route. The speed sensation is consistent with big acceleration at take off and then pretty stable throughout (i.e. NO sudden change to MACH speeds. EVER).
You cannot even provide a map.
-
Empiricism isn't based on eyesight or vision, it's based on what we actually experience. There are ways for us to experience Infra-Red and other spectrum. There is not a real way for us to experience something like "gravitons".
I see from your profile picture that you wear glasses (me too). You're using a scientific "instrument" (your glasses) to view the world. Your experience of the world is modified by those things.
So at what point does a gravity wave telescope depart from the realm of things that we're allowed to use?
Take the example of Infra-Red light. Some time after Sir Isaac Newton figured out that sunlight could be broken up into it's component colors. In 1800, Sir William Hurschel wondered whether any particular color of the sunlight was responsible for it's heat.
So he bought eight identical thermometers and a nice large prism. He broke the light up into the pretty rainbow and put seven of the thermometers so that their bulbs were each lit up by a separate color. Being a good scientist, he understood that he needed a "control" - so he took his eighth thermometer and put it next to the others - outside of the path of light - so he could record the room temperature.
To his horror (I guess) he found that the control thermometer climbed rapidly in temperature - where the ones in the various colors of sunlight didn't.
It looked to him as though the temperature in the room had somehow shot up!
It didn't take him long to realise that there was an extra "invisible" color at the red end of the spectrum...something you couldn't see - but which the prism was separating out just like the other light.
He called that "infra-red"...and understood that by far the most energy in sunlight was coming through the "invisible" parts of it.
So his "observation" used a prism and a bunch of thermometers and produced a result that you can't "directly" experience. Does this count as an "actual experience" - or did his use of intermediaries, such as prisms and thermometers somehow invalidate his experiment in your eyes?
The problem is where you draw the line.
Does the precise measuring equipment used by LIGO to observe gravity waves differ philosphically from thermometers and a prism - or from eye glasses for that matter? Where is the boundary?
-
Empiricism isn't based on eyesight or vision, it's based on what we actually experience. There are ways for us to experience Infra-Red and other spectrum. There is not a real way for us to experience something like "gravitons".
I see from your profile picture that you wear glasses (me too). You're using a scientific "instrument" (your glasses) to view the world. Your experience of the world is modified by those things.
So at what point does a gravity wave telescope depart from the realm of things that we're allowed to use?
Take the example of Infra-Red light. Some time after Sir Isaac Newton figured out that sunlight could be broken up into it's component colors. In 1800, Sir William Hurschel wondered whether any particular color of the sunlight was responsible for it's heat.
So he bought eight identical thermometers and a nice large prism. He broke the light up into the pretty rainbow and put seven of the thermometers so that their bulbs were each lit up by a separate color. Being a good scientist, he understood that he needed a "control" - so he took his eighth thermometer and put it next to the others - outside of the path of light - so he could record the room temperature.
To his horror (I guess) he found that the control thermometer climbed rapidly in temperature - where the ones in the various colors of sunlight didn't.
It looked to him as though the temperature in the room had somehow shot up!
It didn't take him long to realise that there was an extra "invisible" color at the red end of the spectrum...something you couldn't see - but which the prism was separating out just like the other light.
He called that "infra-red"...and understood that by far the most energy in sunlight was coming through the "invisible" parts of it.
So his "observation" used a prism and a bunch of thermometers and produced a result that you can't "directly" experience. Does this count as an "actual experience" - or did his use of intermediaries, such as prisms and thermometers somehow invalidate his experiment in your eyes?
The problem is where you draw the line.
Does the precise measuring equipment used by LIGO to observe gravity waves differ philosophically from thermometers and a prism - or from eyeglasses for that matter? Where is the boundary?
The boundary is quite clear. It's anything that challenges a belief system. When it's pointed out that a man could not live in the belly of a whale, fundamentalists will cry foul. Same goes for a pair of every animal in the world on a boat. Same for anything that can and does blow holes in the FE experience.
-
Does the precise measuring equipment used by LIGO to observe gravity waves differ philosophically from thermometers and a prism - or from eyeglasses for that matter? Where is the boundary?
The boundary is quite clear. It's anything that challenges a belief system. When it's pointed out that a man could not live in the belly of a whale, fundamentalists will cry foul. Same goes for a pair of every animal in the world on a boat. Same for anything that can and does blow holes in the FE experience.
Shhh...no giving hints! :-)
I agree - but when confronted with an unreasonable claim, the best one can do is to show just how unreasonable it is.
When confronted with someone who is a zealot - the best one can do is to push their limits to see how far they'll go with it. Once you know those limits, you can destroy them while remaining within them.
So if Tom claims that prisms and thermometers are OK - but LIGO isn't - we'll find some way to destroy FE using technology no fancier than prisms and thermometers.
Actually, this is already done. I've posted SO MANY disproofs - and most of them have gone completely unchallenged.
-
I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.
TomTom you're too generous, I assure you the embarrassment is ALL yours. (It's not as if any other FEr is going to help you).
I have colleagues based all AROUND the globe and just to make a point I have emailed/called them and asked them to confirm time and date for sunrise AND sunset......guess what. The Info is correct in the following locations;
Nairobi, Mt Kenya, Alberta, Bielefeld, Belize, Brunei, Hamilton Island, Hong Kong, Glasgow, Chamonix, Dulmen, offshore of UAE and London.
Face it Mr B, if it's a debate using facts, logic reason and science then FE is beaten. All you have is irrational belief.... just like religions and they are doing MUCH better than you guys.
Religious belief is legally protected whilst you guys are legally ridiculed. Just become a position of faith, a religion, then you can be at peace.
You can't fight with facts anymore as they are not your friends. But belief could be and I'll fight to protect your right to believe anything you want.
DA
-
Face it Mr B, if it's a debate using facts, logic reason and science then FE is beaten. All you have is irrational belief.... just like religions and they are doing MUCH better than you guys.
Religious belief is legally protected whilst you guys are legally ridiculed. Just become a position of faith, a religion, then you can be at peace.
You can't fight with facts anymore as they are not your friends. But belief could be and I'll fight to protect your right to believe anything you want.
DA
FE'ers are entitled to their own opinions - but they are not entitled to their own facts.
So let's dispute facts - get them straightened out - then opinions will change or people will look foolish.
-
There's an easy experiment anyone can do at or near their home to demonstrate to themselves that the earth is not flat.
You will need:
* A camera capable of long-exposure photography
* A tripod (or something to prop the camera on)
* A spirit-level
* A protractor, or some other way of measuring an angle
* A dark, clear night
* Something circular and of a good size, like a large plate or a record.
Point your camera directly at Polaris (or towards the south if you are in southern latitudes). Use the spirit level and the protractor to measure the angle above 'level' the camera is pointing. Note this value down. (NB: If you check on a map, you should see that the angle you measured corresponds fairly well to your latitude).
Now take a long-exposure photograph (or a sequence of long-exposure photographs and composite them) in order to capture star trails.
You will observe that the star trails are circular and concentric.
Now take your circular object (an LP record is ideal), place it on the floor, and take a photo of it from directly above (I'll call this 'on-axis'). You will observe that it appears visually circular.
Now move your camera off-axis, to the side, keeping the record centered in the viewfinder. You will observe the record no longer appears visually circular, but elliptical, and that this effect becomes more pronounced the further off-axis you move.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjkzWDY5Mw==/z/pnwAAMXQUmFSnGv5/$_12.JPG?set_id=880000500F)(http://www.furnacemfg.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/t/r/trans_red.jpg)
(Obviously it won't change colour. If it does, you have problems that extend beyond the scope of this experiment).
Bonus points: observe that not only does the record become visually elliptical, but its form is no longer visually concentric. This is difficult to see with the naked eye because our brains are accustomed to compensating for perspective. As you can see from the image below, however, a line drawn through the centre does not span the visually widest part of the record, and there are clearly more red pixels below the line than above it.
(https://i.imgur.com/8SQvB4J.jpg)
If you experiment with photographing the record from different heights and different distances off-axis, you'll notice that there is less distortion from moving (say) one foot off-axis when you are shooting from high up than if you move one foot off-axis shooting from lower down.
Recall the angle you measured when photographing Polaris. This time, aim the camera DOWN by that angle (since we're working on the floor. If you want to stick the record to the ceiling instead, knock yourself out. Not literally).
Without adjusting the angle of the camera, move the tripod or support so that the record is centred in the viewfinder. You have now created a simulation of what star trails close to Polaris would look like if you viewed them from a flat earth: elliptical and not visually concentric.
How the Round Earth model accounts for these observations while FE cannot.
Recall that deviations off-axis that are small relative to the height above the record do not induce significant distortion of the circular appearance of the record. The key word here is 'relative'. In order for star trails to appear circular where you live, it must therefore be the case that your distance from the pole is relatively tiny compared to the distance to the stars.
But if that is the case, then on a flat earth it would be impossible to go anywhere and see Polaris anything other than directly or almost directly overhead. You can check this yourself with your record: you'll find that you can't get anywhere near your measured angle of Polaris without seeing significant elliptical distortion.
So how does the Round Earth model accommodate this?
Quite straightforwardly: in the REM, the deviation of Polaris from directly overhead is not induced by lateral distance from the pole (movement away from the axis), but by the fact that what constitutes 'overhead' is different at different latitudes. All locations on earth are negligibly distant from the polar axis when compared to the distance of the stars.
What if the sky were a dome?
If the sky were a dome, we would still see elliptical distortion of star trails when shot from locations distant from the pole on a flat earth. The only difference is that they would deviate from being concentric in a different way.
Doesn't scale make a difference?
No. A 20cm circle viewed from a height of 1m and 1m off-axis (ie, from an angle of 45 degrees) is visually identical (in that it would exactly obscure) a 200m circle viewed from a height of 1000m and 1000m off-axis. The experiment with the record is a valid representation of what star trails would look like on a flat earth with Polaris at the angle you measured from the horizon.
If the earth orbits the sun, why doesn't THAT cause Polaris to deviate from over the pole?
It does - just not very much. Polaris is around 27 million times further away from earth than the earth is from the sun. Seeing the deviation of Polaris caused by the Earth's orbit is like trying to see something a kilometre away wobble by less than 1/13th of a millimetre - impossible with the naked eye, but detectable with the proper equipment. The deviation caused by the earth's rotation over the course of a day, however, is millions of times smaller than that and completely undetectable.
In any case, this doesn't matter as far as disproving the FE model is concerned. Circularity of star-trails at all latitudes implies that stars must be very, very distant compared to the viewer's distance from the pole. On a flat earth, this would mean Polaris would be directly or nearly directly overhead, everywhere on earth, which it manifestly is not.
-
Thanks Jocelyn, great experiment. :D
I look forwards to reading what the FE'r has to say about it. It seems they have been busy lately with their other lives as we have only had Tom commenting from the FE perspective recently (and TBH he is clutching at straws now and getting ever more ridiculous in the attempt to keep up the charade).
Welcome to the madness ;D
-
A great experiment and explanation Jocelyn. I'd love to hear the flat earth response, but sadly they seem to be vanishing these days. Tom is sadly outgunned with his "waves and whatnot," and let's not forget Gary is still popping up now and again, but he makes Tom's posts seem meaningful.
-
The answer to the above thought experiment is that you are adopting certain rules to perspective that have never really been demonstrated. The Ancient Greeks alleged that perspective lines operated on the same continuous rules as their trigonometry. But it has never been demonstrated what perspective actually does at long distances. There is no evidence that parallel perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as an example.
There is some empirical evidence that receding bodies get more constant in their progress across the sky as they increase their altitudes, and this can be interpreted to mean that, if the universe does not operate on continuous rules (there is evidence suggesting that we live in a discrete universe), at some point they reach their maximum consistency across the sky. Thus, if the stars are all traveling across the sky consistently, they could not create the angled disk that has been proposed.
See the following article in the Wiki:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?
A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.
It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.
When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f6/Perspective_speed.png)
The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.
-
The answer to the above thought experiment is that you are adopting certain rules to perspective that have never really been demonstrated. The Ancient Greeks alleged that perspective lines operated on the same continuous rules as their trigonometry. But it has never been demonstrated what perspective actually does at long distances. There is no evidence that parallel perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as an example.
There is some empirical evidence that receding bodies get more constant in their progress across the sky as they increase their altitudes, and this can be interpreted to mean that, if the universe does not operate on continuous rules (there is evidence suggesting that we live in a discrete universe), at some point they reach their maximum consistency across the sky. Thus, if the stars are all traveling across the sky consistently, they could not create the angled disk that has been proposed.
See the following article in the Wiki:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?
A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.
It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.
When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f6/Perspective_speed.png)
The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.
Your 'answer' and 'evidence' are based upon the supposition that the Earth is flat. If the Earth is round, the planes move at a steady pace for exactly the same reason the sun does. i.e. they are tracking a circle above you when remaining at the same altitude. When at a higher altitude, the circle has more space above you, creating a more even look of speed. You are begging the question in your answer. Both models with show this behavior, both can explain it. You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.
-
You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.
I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. Perspective was never really proven to operate on continuous trigonometry rules in the first place. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.
-
You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.
I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.
Your evidence is not evidence of your claim though. Did you miss that? If we are on a globe the movement of the plane functions exactly as current perspective claims it should. We only run into issues if we are on a flat Earth. Thus your 'evidence' shows nothing because you have not proven we are on a flat Earth.
-
You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.
I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.
Your evidence is not evidence of your claim though. Did you miss that? If we are on a globe the movement of the plane functions exactly as current perspective claims it should. We only run into issues if we are on a flat Earth. Thus your 'evidence' shows nothing because you have not proven we are on a flat Earth.
You do realize that the original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation, right?
The original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation. I provided the Flat Earth explanation, and provided the evidence the explanation was based on. I don't see where I wrote in my above messages "and therefore this proves the earth is flat!" We collect evidence empirically and make the best conclusion from the available evidence.
-
You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.
I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.
Your evidence is not evidence of your claim though. Did you miss that? If we are on a globe the movement of the plane functions exactly as current perspective claims it should. We only run into issues if we are on a flat Earth. Thus your 'evidence' shows nothing because you have not proven we are on a flat Earth.
You do realize that the original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation, right?
I'm simply pointing out that what you claim as evidence for how it works, is only evidence if the Earth is indeed flat.
"There is some empirical evidence that receding bodies get more constant in their progress across the sky as they increase their altitudes" Presupposes the Earth is flat.
You snipped the part where I stated this in your very first reply. I should have perhaps been more clear that was the thrust of my point though. My apologies.
-
You do realize that the original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation, right?
The original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation. I provided the Flat Earth explanation, and provided the evidence the explanation was based on. I don't see where I wrote in my above messages "and therefore this proves the earth is flat!" We collect evidence empirically and make the best conclusion from the available evidence.
You do realize we all know you think the earth is not a globe, right? You provide the Flat Earth explanation, we don't have any reason to believe you DON'T think it proves the earth flat. Quite the contrary in fact. If you don't believe a piece of evidence is proof of your position....maybe don't present it?
-
You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.
I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. Perspective was never really proven to operate on continuous trigonometry rules in the first place. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.
Two points. If there’s no real evidence for how perspective works, then it’s not a valid proof of a flat earth.
Secondly, common sense says that if you have an infinitely long railway track, the tracks will appear to get closer together, to the point where they appear to touch. However, they will never appear to cross over. This can be proved mathematically, but I can’t be bothered as you can easily find the proof with Google, or common sense.
To expand on that, the sleepers appear to get closer and closer together as you get further and further away. We can see this for ourselves, so we don’t need any more evidence. Now, if we imagine a train running down the track, it gets smaller as it gets farther away. The rate of ‘shrinkage’ slows as it gets further away (think back, the sleepers appear to get closer together) but as the tracks never actually touch, to train never gets to the vanishing point. The tracks never appear to cross over. This also explains why objects far away seem to travel slower than ones close up.
This is your proof that perspective is well understood, whether you understand it or not. Like I said, Google the maths, or use common sense. Mind, you think all waves are bigger than heads, so I should stick to google!
As an aside, this explanation works on a flat earth.
-
Two points. If there’s no real evidence for how perspective works, then it’s not a valid proof of a flat earth.
Who said that the observations of planes was a proof that the earth was flat? ???
Secondly, common sense says that if you have an infinitely long railway track, the tracks will appear to get closer together, to the point where they appear to touch. However, they will never appear to cross over. This can be proved mathematically, but I can’t be bothered as you can easily find the proof with Google, or common sense.
Who said anything about them crossing over?
-
Earth Not Globe uses perspective as an explanation for sunsets. If perspective isn’t proved, then it’s not a valid explanation.
You say perspective is the explanation for sunsets. The sun sets below the horizon, therefore, your version of perspective has things swapping positions.
-
The answer to the above thought experiment is that you are adopting certain rules to perspective that have never really been demonstrated.
It's not a thought experiment. It's a practical, empirical, falsifiable experiment that you can perform yourself. I did not reference a single pre-existing 'rule of perspective'. Nor does one have to involve the horizon; the same experiment can be performed referencing only 'overhead'. If you would prefer I'll go back and make that change so you can stop worrying about planes approaching the horizon etc, which aren't relevant here.
The argument I'm making is straightforward:
1) Viewing circular shapes from significantly off-axis (ie, at a distance to the side that is not small compared to the distance away) makes them look elliptical.
2) Star trails are visually circular at all latitudes, therefore from 1) we cannot be viewing them from significantly off-axis.
3) If moving from the pole to the equator does not constitute moving 'significantly off-axis' then stars must be very distant - many times further away than the size of the earth.
4) If stars are many times further away than the size of the earth, and the earth is flat, then Polaris would necessarily be visible directly or almost directly overhead from everywhere on earth (in the same way as a streetlamp will remain overhead if you stand beneath it and move only a few inches to each side)
5) Polaris appears more than 45 degrees from overhead to most observers.
6) This is a contradiction; something in the above sequence must be incorrect. The only speculative element is the claim that the earth is flat, ergo that is necessarily the faulty claim.
Some ways you could falsify the experiment:
* You could demonstrate that the record does not appear visually elliptical when photographed from the same angle as Polaris appears to you in the sky.
* You could demonstrate that increasing the distance to the record whilst maintaining the same viewing angle causes the record to appear more and more circular:
(https://i.imgur.com/2y4N0GR.png)
* You could demonstrate that Polaris is in fact visible overhead or nearly overhead at low latitudes.
-
I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur. If you are claiming that perspective operates on continuous rules, that is on you to show.
-
I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.
You’ve got that backwards. You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away. Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.
-
I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.
You’ve got that backwards. You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away. Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.
The sunset is emperically observed to occur. It is on the party claiming that the sun would operate on a special kind of continuous math to demonstrate that claim.
-
I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.
You’ve got that backwards. You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away. Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.
The sunset is emperically observed to occur. It is on the party claiming that the sun would operate on a special kind of continuous math to demonstrate that claim.
There is nothing special about continuous maths. That is the normal type of mathematics. If you think the sunset is an effect of some unusual noncontinuos math, then the burden of proof is on you.
Likewise, perspective changes size and speed, but never changes something from being above to below. If you think it does, then it’s up to you to prove something that is out of the norm.
You can’t (with any credibility) say the sunset is due to perspective and refer to ancient scriptures which are clearly wrong and then not follow up with a proper explanation.
-
I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.
You’ve got that backwards. You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away. Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.
The sunset is emperically observed to occur. It is on the party claiming that the sun would operate on a special kind of continuous math to demonstrate that claim.
There is nothing special about continuous maths. That is the normal type of mathematics. If you think the sunset is an effect of some unusual noncontinuos math, then the burden of proof is on you.
Likewise, perspective changes size and speed, but never changes something from being above to below. If you think it does, then it’s up to you to prove something that is out of the norm.
You can’t (with any credibility) say the sunset is due to perspective and refer to ancient scriptures which are clearly wrong and then not follow up with a proper explanation.
Our claim merely extends to "the sunset happens" and "the sun seems to travel constantly across the sky". Both of these are emperical conclusions and are unquestionable.
YOU are asserting that the sunset can't move constantly or get to the horizon based on certain continuous mathematical rules. It is up to YOU to demonstrate YOUR claims.
-
Well math works to describe everyday physical relationships and has for thousands of years. If you want proof it works, it does not get any simpler than that. As far as perspective working, all it requires is that light travels in a straight line. If you wish to say it does otherwise, that is up to you to prove.
-
Sunset happens ! At last, something we agree on. So, you’ve gone from sunset is caused by waves and whatnot, to it radiates in all directions (contrary to your Wiki) but you still can’t see it all the time despite it being well above the horizon all the time, according to basic trigonometry (or are you smarter than Pythagoras?) to sunset just happens, which proves the earth is flat.
There are so many holes and inconsistencies in your arguments, I don’t really know where to start. So how about this. On a round earth sunset is easily explained as you rotate from the lit side to the shadow side. This is my proof that the world is round and spinning.
According to you, the sun is following a circular track roughly 6000 miles in diameter. Its 3000 miles high. It radiates in all directions so I can still see it at its further point, albeit a bit dimmer than during the ‘day’. It’s 26 degrees above the horizon, using basic trigonometry. This is its furthest point and lowest declination.
This is my disproof that the sun can set on a flat earth. Remember, I’m using your ‘facts’ and basic trig which traces its origins back to ancient Egypt. I don’t want to get distracted into the validity of trigonometry as its fundamental in modern maths. Here’s a history, just to avoid you using this as a distraction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trigonometry
So, demonstrate how the sun can set on a flat earth. No referring me back to your other literature. I want it in your words.
-
I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur. If you are claiming that perspective operates on continuous rules, that is on you to show.
Not sure if this was a response to me? As I said: my experiment doesn't rely on any pre-established 'rules'. In it you establish to your own satisfaction that circles only appear circular when viewed on-axis, or from a position where the off-axis distance is small compared to the distance away. Since star-trails appear circular, we must therefore be viewing them from a position where the off-axis distance is small compared to the distance of the star. That being the case, on a flat earth Polaris would be directly or almost directly overhead everywhere on earth. Which it isn't. Ergo the earth cannot be flat.
-
I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.
You’ve got that backwards. You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away. Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.
The sunset is emperically observed to occur. It is on the party claiming that the sun would operate on a special kind of continuous math to demonstrate that claim.
There is nothing special about continuous maths. That is the normal type of mathematics. If you think the sunset is an effect of some unusual noncontinuos math, then the burden of proof is on you.
Likewise, perspective changes size and speed, but never changes something from being above to below. If you think it does, then it’s up to you to prove something that is out of the norm.
You can’t (with any credibility) say the sunset is due to perspective and refer to ancient scriptures which are clearly wrong and then not follow up with a proper explanation.
Our claim merely extends to "the sunset happens" and "the sun seems to travel constantly across the sky". Both of these are emperical conclusions and are unquestionable.
YOU are asserting that the sunset can't move constantly or get to the horizon based on certain continuous mathematical rules. It is up to YOU to demonstrate YOUR claims.
I didn't say EITHER of those things. I said that those things can't happen IF THE EARTH IS FLAT. They are perfectly possible - and EASILY demonstrated using math and basic physics in the Round Earth.
All I have to do (and I've done it repeatedly) is to show that sunsets can't work in the Flat Earth and that the flat earth hypothesis fails to describe how sunsets happen, how the sun doesn't get smaller at sunset, how clouds are lit from below at sunset, how the timing and direction of sunsets would be different than they really are...MANY other things.
If those provable claims cannot be shown to be false - then your batshit crazy flat earth hypothesis is disproven.
Where is YOUR proof? You can't even explain how the photons get from the sun to my eye at sunset...which is really the most basic thing. You keep throwing up nonsense about Zeno's paradox and continuous versus descrete math and saying completely stupid things like that diagrams can't represent reality.
These are all signs of a desperate man who has run out of real arguments and is now scraping the bottom of the barrel hoping for some dregs of ideas that can discount the tsunami of disproofs that have been presented here over the last 4 months.
You've lost Tom.
Even your own people have stopped backing you up. When was the last time a Flat Earther actually agreed with you?
-
Well math works to describe everyday physical relationships and has for thousands of years. If you want proof it works, it does not get any simpler than that. As far as perspective working, all it requires is that light travels in a straight line. If you wish to say it does otherwise, that is up to you to prove.
The Ancient Greek continuous math only works to describe physical relationships if you round the variables and the results -- that is, if you assume a discrete universe.
It has not been shown what kind of math perspective adheres to, and so we should not assume hypothetical concepts such as such as "this math shows that things should be an infinite distance away at the horizon." It must first be shown that the perspective lines operate on a continuous rule set before such a conclusion can be made.
-
Sunset happens ! At last, something we agree on. So, you’ve gone from sunset is caused by waves and whatnot, to it radiates in all directions (contrary to your Wiki) but you still can’t see it all the time despite it being well above the horizon all the time, according to basic trigonometry (or are you smarter than Pythagoras?) to sunset just happens, which proves the earth is flat.
You have a lot wrong there. Those are all part of the same explanation, and you are interpreting the Wiki wrongly.
Also, no one said anything about it proving the earth is flat.
There are so many holes and inconsistencies in your arguments, I don’t really know where to start. So how about this. On a round earth sunset is easily explained as you rotate from the lit side to the shadow side. This is my proof that the world is round and spinning.
According to you, the sun is following a circular track roughly 6000 miles in diameter. Its 3000 miles high. It radiates in all directions so I can still see it at its further point, albeit a bit dimmer than during the ‘day’. It’s 26 degrees above the horizon, using basic trigonometry. This is its furthest point and lowest declination.
This is my disproof that the sun can set on a flat earth. Remember, I’m using your ‘facts’ and basic trig which traces its origins back to ancient Egypt. I don’t want to get distracted into the validity of trigonometry as its fundamental in modern maths. Here’s a history, just to avoid you using this as a distraction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trigonometry
You are assuming that perspective operates on the basic rules of trigonometry. Trigonometry and Geometry assume a lot of things about the nature of infinity and has a continuous nature that has not really been demonstrated to translate to the real world.
So, demonstrate how the sun can set on a flat earth. No referring me back to your other literature. I want it in your words.
I have given you my words. We observe that the sunset happens, therefore it does. That is a direct demonstration that the sunset happens.
Your response is that "according to this model, the sunset cannot happen"
Our response is "before we consider this, please show that this model is accurate"
The conversation usually ends there. The empiricist held an unquestionable truth, while his opponent fought with a questionable hypothesis. Who won and who lost?
-
Tom, YOU are the one who wants perspective to do something different to the sun and moon than it does for everything else in human experience. That means YOU have to show that it does.
The rest of us all agree that perspective does TWO things: it makes receding above-ground objects (birds, airplanes, clouds, etc) appear lower in the sky, AND it makes them appear smaller, at the same time and by the same ratio. You (by your perpetual reference to ENaG) seem to think that for ONLY the sun and moon, perspective can make them appear lower in the sky but preserve their apparent size. That’s on you to prove.
“Look at them, they appear to rise and set, the same size as when they’re at zenith, therefore it happens” is not proof. That’s the same category of “proof” as a magician claiming he ACTUALLY caught between his teeth the bullet ACTUALLY fired from the pistol. We all know that’s an illusion. Just like the earth being flat is an illusion, although not a human-devised, attempt-to-deceive illusion. It’s a matter of sheer size and scale. On the round earth, we are ever so very slightly closer to the noonday sun then we are to the rising or setting sun, multiples with lots of zeros after the decimal place. This is not enough different to see a change in apparent size. On a flat earth, however, we are whole number multiples closer, which would have a huge impact on the apparent size in the sky of the sun.
-
It must first be shown that the perspective lines operate on continuous rules before such a conclusion can be made.
Tom, there is zero evidence that perspective is anything but continuous. I've pointed out repeatedly that any discontinuous nature of the universe is at such a small scale that it plays no role in our daily world. Second, this discrete nature has never been proven in a lab as the sizes we are talking about are FAR smaller than anything we can detect. Given that it can't be proven in a lab and is only theoretical, you can go ahead and stop using it because you NEVER accept any evidence from the RE side that isn't lab provable.
Size of an atom ~ 0.0000000001 meters
Planck's length = 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016 meters
We both know why you're playing this non-continuous universe thing. Linear perspective destroys your notion of how the sun sets. if there is not curve or warping of space, the sun can't set on a flat Earth.
-
Tom, YOU are the one who wants perspective to do something different to the sun and moon than it does for everything else in human experience. That means YOU have to show that it does.
If you can show us where we can see the hidden pockets of infinity in the perspective lines I will be willing to concede that it is a concept rooted in human experience.
As it is right now, when we see the perspective lines touch you tell us that it is an illusion and quote some math for us. Your argument isn't really based on "human experience".
“Look at them, they appear to rise and set, the same size as when they’re at zenith, therefore it happens” is not proof.
Actually, it is proof that it happens.
You assume we should be so very concerned with coming up with the math necessary to make that happen. You think we should strive to come up with hypothesis, when we do not really believe that things should be explained or decided on based on a hypothesis. Unless the entire ruleset of such a mathematical model can be discovered empirically, you will not see us put forward the type of disgusting hypothetical models you approximate in.
-
As it is right now, when we see the perspective lines touch you tell us that it is an illusion and quote some math for us. Your argument isn't really based on "human experience".
Please provide proof that "perspective lines" touch. I've been around awhile - never seen it in the real world.
Unless the entire ruleset of such a mathematical model can be discovered empirically, you will not see us put forward the type of disgusting hypothetical models you approximate in.
And yet your entire theory falls on it's face without the imaginary, completely hypothetical, and totally unempirical force that magically accelerates the Earth at a steady rate. Your double-standards are astonishing.
-
Just curious Tom, how do you empirically prove the Earth continues beyond the horizon?
-
Tom, YOU are the one who wants perspective to do something different to the sun and moon than it does for everything else in human experience. That means YOU have to show that it does.
If you can show us where we can see the hidden pockets of infinity in the perspective lines I will be willing to concede that it is a concept rooted in human experience.
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Sunrise.png)
The argument doesn't depend on any infinities - the diagram uses simple finite numbers. I could make a scale model of it very easily.
What is wrong with this diagram? It simply shows where the photons MUST be travelling. We agree that they go in a straight line. We agree that there are sunsets. But if we agree that there are sunsets and that light travels in straight lines - then the only thing wrong with this diagram is that it shows the earth as being flat and the sun being within a few thousand miles away instead of a few million.
The diagram doesn't assume a continuous or discrete universe - it just shows where the photons travel.
Why won't you address this? Are you scared to? Does it destroy your world-view? It damned well should.
As it is right now, when we see the perspective lines touch you tell us that it is an illusion and quote some math for us. Your argument isn't really based on "human experience".
Sure it is! There is the sun - it's behind that tree that's on the horizon. This is only the case because the world isn't flat.
“Look at them, they appear to rise and set, the same size as when they’re at zenith, therefore it happens” is not proof.
Actually, it is proof that it happens.
Indeed it is Tom. There are sunsets and sunrises (and moonsets and moonrises and Vega-sets and Vega-rises). But if light travels in straight lines - then the world simply cannot be flat with the sun at finite distance.
Perspective really has nothing to do with it - that's something YOU brought up in a desperate effort to fix your broken cosmology.
You can't fix it...you just can't.
You assume we should be so very concerned with coming up with the math necessary to make that happen. You think we should strive to come up with hypothesis, when we do not really believe that things should be explained or decided on based on a hypothesis. Unless the entire ruleset of such a mathematical model can be discovered empirically, you will not see us put forward the type of disgusting hypothetical models you approximate in.
We don't need math - the diagram is 100% convincing without math. But math works with it too. So do simple words talking about how those photons travel along that straight path.
We can confirm this with simple experiments - that clouds are lit from below around sunset.
You simply cannot explain these things - and the reason why is obvious. The world is round Tom...ROUND.
-
Tom, YOU are the one who wants perspective to do something different to the sun and moon than it does for everything else in human experience. That means YOU have to show that it does.
If you can show us where we can see the hidden pockets of infinity in the perspective lines I will be willing to concede that it is a concept rooted in human experience.
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Sunrise.png)
The argument doesn't depend on any infinities - the diagram uses simple finite numbers. I could make a scale model of it very easily.
What is wrong with this diagram? It simply shows where the photons MUST be travelling. We agree that they go in a straight line. We agree that there are sunsets. But if we agree that there are sunsets and that light travels in straight lines - then the only thing wrong with this diagram is that it shows the earth as being flat and the sun being within a few thousand miles away instead of a few million.
The diagram doesn't assume a continuous or discrete universe - it just shows where the photons travel.
Why won't you address this? Are you scared to? Does it destroy your world-view? It damned well should.
I have addressed your diagram on numerous occasions. The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards. The target is forwards -- just as during sunset when we see the sun forwards.
The physics in your scene are entirely wrong. You are using a model in which it is impossible for a horizon to exist. It is impossible for railroad tracks to touch a horizon in that model. Railroad tracks touch the horizon at a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.
(https://i.imgur.com/WDmYgHT.png)
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality. Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.
Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.
-
You assume we should be so very concerned with coming up with the math necessary to make that happen. You think we should strive to come up with hypothesis, when we do not really believe that things should be explained or decided on based on a hypothesis. Unless the entire ruleset of such a mathematical model can be discovered empirically, you will not see us put forward the type of disgusting hypothetical models you approximate in.
What are you taking about? You have put forth several hypotheses, among them:
- that angular velocity depends on the distance to the observer (Cessna vs Boeing, why the sun's angular velocity is constant)
- that objects past a certain distance are unobservable due to perspective lines or non continuous universe or something (why the sun sets)
- that rate of change of angular size of objects tends to zero with increasing distance (why the sun's apparent size doesn't change)
- ... Or that bright lights get bigger apparent size with distance
- That you can tell what beach you are looking at across the bay from Pacific Grove
- that parallel lines meet at or before infinity
So why do you lean on hypotheses so much if they are disgusting?
EDIT: typo
-
Who writes ' The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards'? Complete rubbish.
-
Who writes ' The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards'? Complete rubbish.
At sunset when the sun is at your eye level horizon, are you looking upwards or forwards? You are looking forwards, right? That is the reasoning for why the sun is casting its light forwards to reach the target from its perspective.
Under the traditional model, if the sun sent its light forward, it would totally miss the observer, but that model has not been demonstrated to reflect reality, and is contradictory to the fact that we are not looking upwards when the sun is at the horizon.
-
I have addressed your diagram on numerous occasions. The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards. The target is forwards -- just as during sunset when we see the sun forwards.
No - what I've just quoted above is a nonsense paragraph.
"The sun will see the observer at it's horizon"...if the Earth is flat and the sun is 3000 miles up - it doesn't HAVE a horizon. It's rays could reach every part of the Earth were it not for your "flashlight" effect.
"...and that is where it will send it's light."...the sun isn't a sentient being...how does it know where to "send it's light"?!?
"Its light is not being cast downwards."...of course it does! When it's sunrise for me - it's noon for someone else - and the sun must be shining light downwards.
"The target is forwards -- just as during sunset when we see the sun forwards." - where is "Forwards" for a ball that's 3,000 miles above the surface? Do you mean "horizontally"?
These sentences may mean something to you - but honestly they read like random babble to me.
Let's break down that post you've copied from a previous thread:
The physics in your scene are entirely wrong. You are using a model in which it is impossible for a horizon to exist. It is impossible for railroad tracks to touch a horizon in that model. Railroad tracks touch the horizon at a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
We're not talking about infinite distances or railroad tracks...we're asking WHERE DO THE PHOTONS ACTUALLY TRAVEL TO GET FROM THE SUN TO MY EYE. Where is that photon from one moment to the next? (If we imagine a discrete universe) or What is the path travelled by the photon? (If we imagine a continuous universe).
That is a mind-numbingly simple question...so why won't you answer it?
Just tell us...do they follow the blue line or the pink line or some other line?
The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT.
OK - then it's the blue line - that's a straight line from where the sun is physically located to my eye - we lay out a virtual straight-edged ruler from the sun to my eye and that's where the photons go...that is the blue line - and it obviously completely misses the tree at the horizon. If the tree is 6 miles away - then the light ray crosses it at an altitude of 3 miles and cannot be BLOCKED by the tree. So if everything works the way you claim - then there can be no sunrises or sunsets.
But clearly there ARE sunrises and sunsets - so there must be something wrong with your idea of where the sun physically is and/or your idea of the shape of the Earth. Hence the earth is not flat. QED.
But then you say:
The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.
So you don't tell me the complete path of the light here - just how it starts out (horizontally) and how it ends up (horizontally) - but you carefully avoid saying where it goes between the start and finish.
If they leave the sun "horizontally" (which I think is what you're saying here) - then the photons will travel along at the same altitude above the earth and never reach the ground. They can't arrive at my eye horizontally or they'd have to travel on curved path or take a 3,000 mile dog-leg someplace.
So then you give us this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/WDmYgHT.png)
In the top half, we have a man who is clearly about 3,000 miles tall looking at a sun that is burning a damned great hole in the ground about 6,000 miles away.
This is CLEARLY not a diagram about the real path of actual photons in the situation we're describing - it's like a photograph taken of the scene from the point of view of the man - drawn sideways and with a very weird scale...I have no clue what this is telling us.
The bottom half of the diagram - where (for some weird reason) you've tilted the Earth to the right - isn't correct either. In the real world geometry, the sun's rays make a steeper angle to the ground than the rays of light from the top leaves of the tree. So this diagram represents some kind of "wishful thinking" on your part. But also, the sun's rays aren't leaving the sun at 90 degrees to it's zenith (you mean "horizontally" - right?)...clearly the rays are sloping downwards...which contradicts what you just told us in words.
Also, suppose we wait a minute or two until the sun is halfway below the horizon and the rays of light are passing by the base of the tree instead of through the leaves? How does your diagram look then?
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
Yes - this is what should happen - and in RET (where the ground curves downwards and the sun is 93 million miles away) - that's exactly what would happen. But with your Flat Earth hypothesis, that can't happen - the sun is still 3,000 miles above the ground and a horizontal ray will just stay at the same height above the ground and passes over my head at an altitude of 3,000 miles...so that doesn't work.
The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality. Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.
Well, light travels in straight lines - over all distances - right? My diagram makes no reference whatever to either perspective of infinities. All of the numbers are nice simple, finite values - and we're not talking about images being formed or anything complicated like that - just about where the photons physically travel to reach my eyeball.
You just told us that they leave the sun travelling horizontally - and arrive at my eyes travelling horizontally - but you fail to explain how the ray descends through 3,000 miles while travelling horizontally and in a straight line.
This is where your ideas fail.
Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.
We disagree about that - but I'm not talking about pictures of things - so perspective is simply not relevant. I'm just asking how the suns rays can travel in a straight line from 3,000 miles up - past a tree at zero altitude and into my eye at zero altitude without curving or taking a dog-leg.
This is NOT a difficult question - and if you believe in FET - you need to come up with an answer or we've conclusively proven that the flat earth cannot exist.
-
Who writes ' The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards'? Complete rubbish.
At sunset when the sun is at your eye level horizon, are you looking upwards or forwards? The answer is that you are looking forwards; and that is the reasoning for why the sun is casting its light forwards to reach the observer from its perspective.
Assuming I am on the coast looking west over the sea I will be looking down slightly at the horizon.
Saying casting its light forward to reach the observer is the most odd way of describing the sun. Why to you persist is this quaint way of writing which nobody else uses.Is it to confuse on purpose?
Your use of the words we and our imply more then yourself, we know it is just you.
-
Well math works to describe everyday physical relationships and has for thousands of years. If you want proof it works, it does not get any simpler than that. As far as perspective working, all it requires is that light travels in a straight line. If you wish to say it does otherwise, that is up to you to prove.
The Ancient Greek continuous math only works to describe physical relationships if you round the variables and the results -- that is, if you assume a discrete universe.
Continuous math is a thing you made up. It doesn’t mean anything. Also, how do you know the need to round isn’t due to imprecise rulers rather than the math? What is your evidence that it is the math that is the problem and not humans? Have you done any controlled experiments? What was your set up? Who has verified these results?
It has not been shown what kind of math perspective adheres to, and so we should not assume hypothetical concepts such as such as "this math shows that things should be an infinite distance away at the horizon." It must first be shown that the perspective lines operate on a continuous rule set before such a conclusion can be made.
First off, the world doesn’t adhere to math. Math is a tool we use to quantify the world. Second, it can be shown from everyday experience that our interpretation of perspective on earth works. I did work on optics and perspective in grade 11.
-
Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away.
Yes and no in that order :) The former is empirical, while the latter is your interpretation of the sun dipping below the horizon, and easily recognised as impossible via a simple thought-experiment:
Imagine you are standing on some train tracks stretching to the horizon across flat ground. Your assertion is that the horizon is a finite distance away and that the train-tracks genuinely visually intersect : literally zero visual distance between them regardless of how powerful a pair of binoculars we use to inspect them. Let's assume that's true.
Now let's add some tracks parallel to the set we're standing on. Let's add hundreds, thousands of them, all parallel. According to your rules of perspective, they all intersect at the same point on the horizon.
Now let's imagine we have a friend, who starts out standing right in front of us and walks away in a perfectly straight line diagonally across the tracks. We watch him go, getting smaller and smaller, heading for the horizon.
Now, we know from your perspective rules that all these parallel tracks touch the horizon at the exact same point. So we know it doesn't matter which set of tracks he's standing on at the time: when he leaves our sight it must be at the vanishing point of our own set of tracks. So we watch and we wait, confidently expecting his receding figure to start converging towards the singularity on the horizon.
But it doesn't happen. His figure gets smaller and smaller and passes out of sight over the horizon a full 45 degrees away from our vanishing point. How is that possible? He's only traveled a finite distance, only crossed a finite number of tracks - he's standing on a line that runs parallel to our own, and from your rules we know that they all converge to the same point on the horizon. Except the track he's standing on as he crosses the horizon clearly hasn't converged to the vanishing point of our tracks.
Let's say our friend crossed 1000 tracks on his journey to our horizon. We enlist the help of another friend and send her off at a shallower angle, so that she only crosses 500 tracks before reaching our horizon. But she doesn't converge to our vanishing point either. We send more and more friends at shallower and shallower angles crossing fewer and fewer tracks, but to no avail.
Uh oh; where did we go wrong?
The error is pretty obvious: given that the horizon itself does not have zero visual (horizontal) width, and there is only a finite amount of stuff/gaps to fill it with, stuff/gaps cannot possibly attain zero visual width at the horizon. And as our train tracks are made of just regular stuff and gaps, it follows that they cannot and do not attain zero visual width or separation at a horizon a finite distance away, regardless of which direction we imagine them being laid. Therefore, parallel lines viewed in perspective do not intersect over a finite distance. QED.
-
Here's an example photo to illustrate JocelynSachs' point:
(http://whereongoogleearth.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TAR.jpg)
The second set of railroad tracks do not converge to the same point as the center tracks. The telephone/power poles that also run parallel also do not converge to the same point.
-
Can anyone think of a way to get Tom to understand that parallel lines converging is an effect of how we see things, not how they actually exist?
-
Might be easier to start with something simple like secondary school maths...... on second thoughts......
-
Tom, what proof do you have that the sun "sees" perspective? It has no eyes. There is no evidence that perspective is anything more than optical. How much more unproven nonsense are you going to create to patch onto FET to attempt to make it work? At some point, you need to recognize that you're just fooling yourself. (though I suspect you don't actually believe this stuff)
-
Might be easier to start with something simple like secondary school maths...... on second thoughts......
Refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
Who writes ' The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards'? Complete rubbish.
At sunset when the sun is at your eye level horizon, are you looking upwards or forwards? You are looking forwards, right? That is the reasoning for why the sun is casting its light forwards to reach the target from its perspective.
Under the traditional model, if the sun sent its light forward, it would totally miss the observer, but that model has not been demonstrated to reflect reality, and is contradictory to the fact that we are not looking upwards when the sun is at the horizon.
If you refer to my diagram - you'll note that we are simply talking about how the light (or warmth) from the sun arrives at the man's head. It doesn't matter whether his eyes are open or closed - looking up or down. Indeed, we could reduce the problem to placing a white plaster sphere in place of the man with an second observer looking at the sphere and asking which half of it is in light and which half in shadow. If the sun were truly in the direction of the horizon (as it is in RET) then the line between light and dark would be vertical at sunset. But in FET, the sun is 3000 miles above the ground and the sun's rays are descending at an angle close to 30 degrees - so the line between light and dark would be at an angle of 30 degrees to the vertical.
What we're discussing here has NOTHING to do with human vision or vanishing points or perspective...it's merely a question of how the photons get from here to there.
So we're left with this new and interesting quote:
Under the traditional model, if the sun sent its light forward, it would totally miss the observer,
...which (for a flat earth) we do actually agree on...for a round earth, the "traditional model" works just fine.
So you're now in the realms of denying basic geometry in order to get FET to work...right?
Can we be crystal clear on this - you are now denying that basic geometry works...right?
In your world, photons travel in a straight line, horizontally from the sun (because light travels in straight lines) - but none the less crosses the horizon and arrive at the observers' face horizontally.
In your view, in my diagram, the pink line is a straight line...correct?
I want to be REALLY clear on this. This is a statement of your beliefs....right?
-
...The sun will see the observer at its horizon, at 90 degrees, and that is where it will send its light. Its light is not being cast downwards. The target is forwards -- just as during sunset when we see the sun forwards.
I'm confused. From another thread:
The sun shines light in all directions.
Can you help me understand what you're saying about the sun not shining downwards?
-
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.
By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.
Here's where the magic happens:
In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.
The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.
Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.
As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.
-
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.
By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.
Here's where the magic happens:
In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.
The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.
Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.
As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.
This is a great explanation of what Tom possibly believes. I have been struggling with his explanations, and this helped a lot. It really is mind blowing. As I struggle to deal with perspective vs reality, just trying to wrap my mind around this is crazy.
Trying to put this into some terms that I can deal with. Basically, the sun vanishes on the horizon because of the perspective of the person, and that "light" knows where it is on the horizon, but if we were to take a set of rail road tracks and lay them in the same line parallel to each other, they would still be parallel even though they appear to be converging on the horizon. Even though we know for certain that the train tracks a parallel to each other regardless of perspective, somehow "light" is able to determine the perspective of the viewer and their position relative to it.
Mind blown!
Not sure if this is a correct summary, so please help if I have stated something incorrectly.
-
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.
By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.
Here's where the magic happens:
In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.
The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.
Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.
As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.
I think that's some sort of a reasonable analysis of what Tom seems to think.
But it all hinges on this idea that something is broken in fundamental geometric precepts like the law of similar triangles...which really can't be wrong because Euclid's proof of them depends on things as fundamental as ruler and compass constructions.
Personally - I don't think we even need to think about eyes and cameras and perspective at all. We don't have to ask how the sunset LOOKS to the human eye. We can ask "Do we feel the warmth on our faces from direct sunlight at sunset?" - or "How would a sphere look if it were illuminated by the sun at sunset?" In these kinds of thought-experiment (or actual experiment) - you can't invoke "perspective" anymore...you MUST talk about the paths the photons take.
Tom won't address that question...we've pushed him closer and closer to the answer. Today we have:
* The photons leave the sun at 90 degrees to zenith...which I think means "horizontally".
* The photons arrive at your eye horizontally.
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/MagicPerspective.png)
But also...
* Photons travel in straight lines.
Which doesn't really work.
-
You are assuming that space is Euclidean.
In Euclidean Space it would be impossible for anything to appear at the horizon, since it would be an infinite distance away. Since things appear at the horizon in the Flat Earth model, space must not be Euclidean.
-
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.
By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.
Here's where the magic happens:
In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.
The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.
Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.
As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.
I think that's some sort of a reasonable analysis of what Tom seems to think.
But it all hinges on this idea that something is broken in fundamental geometric precepts like the law of similar triangles...which really can't be wrong because Euclid's proof of them depends on things as fundamental as ruler and compass constructions.
Personally - I don't think we even need to think about eyes and cameras and perspective at all. We don't have to ask how the sunset LOOKS to the human eye. We can ask "Do we feel the warmth on our faces from direct sunlight at sunset?" - or "How would a sphere look if it were illuminated by the sun at sunset?" In these kinds of thought-experiment (or actual experiment) - you can't invoke "perspective" anymore...you MUST talk about the paths the photons take.
Tom won't address that question...we've pushed him closer and closer to the answer. Today we have:
* The photons leave the sun at 90 degrees to zenith...which I think means "horizontally".
* The photons arrive at your eye horizontally.
{picture snipped for post length}
But also...
* Photons travel in straight lines.
Which doesn't really work.
But remember, Tom claims perspective isn't a result of the eye or viewing things. It's a physical phenomena that all objects experience. Hence the image of the sun 'seeing' the person at it's height in his earlier image. So while I think Jocelyn's description appears relatively spot on, just eliminating lenses in all forms doesn't help us. Thinking about it, I see another important point to add. This 'feels/sounds right' in my head, we'll see how well I transfer it to paper.
"The horizon always rises to eye level" is a fundamental part of FE. Since this happening is an aspect of perspective, and all objects experience perspective, we have the horizon always at 'eye' level for all things. So this makes a straight line from your eye to the horizon. This means light follows a straight line to the horizon from your eye no matter where you are. Thus, when we reach the horizon of the sun's perspective, we appear to be at the height of the sun from the sun's view, and thus the light travels in a straight line between us and the sun, and the light arrives horizontally.
My head hurts a bit trying to work through that properly, but I *think* this is what's being stated.
You are assuming that space is Euclidean.
In Euclidean Space it would be impossible for anything to appear at the horizon, since it would be an infinite distance away. Since things appear at the horizon in the Flat Earth model, space must not be Euclidean.
Only if you presume we live upon a flat Earth right now. Upon a round Earth the horizon is a natural result of the Earth curving away from you over time. You are begging the question again Tom, and making assumptions.
-
You are assuming that space is Euclidean.
In Euclidean Space it would be impossible for anything to appear at the horizon, since it would be an infinite distance away. Since things appear at the horizon in the Flat Earth model, space must not be Euclidean.
...or the Earth isn't Flat.
Ahhh! So now you're playing the "non-Euclidean geometry" card...I wondered how long it would be before you got THAT desperate.
So you've given up with the other pathetic explanations? No more magic perspective?
Well, I'm sorry - it doesn't help. If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon. When the sunlight peeks between the leaves of the tree - that final path of light from tree and from sun have to be exactly the same.
Also, any geometry that distorted the position of the sun by that much would also distort it's shape to a similar degree - so the sun couldn't possibly be circular when it was distorted enough to reach the horizon.
Also - imagine the light going in the opposite direction.
If I aim a laser at the setting sun (through a convenient gap in the leaves) how does my laser "know" to turn upwards towards the sun - or to continue onwards to a distant mountain that's 100 miles away? It can't go in both directions. But light paths are reversible.
OK - so that's dismissed that one.
What's your next desperate move Tom?
-
You are assuming that space is Euclidean.
In Euclidean Space it would be impossible for anything to appear at the horizon, since it would be an infinite distance away. Since things appear at the horizon in the Flat Earth model, space must not be Euclidean.
Non-Euclidean space doesn't rescue your model; sorry.
What you seem to be hoping for is this:
(https://i.imgur.com/WmqPn0D.png)
The warping of space in the right hand image makes the sun appear on the horizon to the observer. Yay!
But there's a fatal problem: the ray of light in the right hand image is not straight. It looks straight to us, because I've visually overlaid a euclidean straight line on a warped, non-euclidean space. But it's the floor that's actually 'straight' in the right hand image: it's following a straight line within the warped space. The light ray in the right hand image, on the other hand, is travelling in a weird curve, physically changing direction to counter the curvature of space.
To illustrate that, here's what happens if I apply a reverse transformation to visually cancel out the warping of space (sorry it's a bit rough):
(https://i.imgur.com/bu8M8nn.png)
As you can see, the light ray is not travelling in a straight line, but following a long swooping curve, changing direction for no reason.
Now, there is an alternative transformation I could apply, based on the assumption that space in the right hand image is not just bent but also pinched, so that both the floor and the light ray are actually straight and parallel. But that doesn't help us either. Why? Because if the floor and the light ray are straight and parallel, then that is also the path our eye would follow if we walked towards the sun. We would become shorter as we entered the pinch, and taller as we came out the other side, and eventually end up standing staring at the sun floating at head height in front of us. Just as catastrophic is the fact that the same space would need to be warped differently for each observer.
-
If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon.
Also including the ones used by FE to calculate the height of the sun above the flat earth, as I've pointed out before (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5399.msg105322#msg105322). Which means the sun could be at any height. Which is the same as saying that nobody can know anything about the sun's height, since how would you know how much curvature the light has?
It's much easier to assume the light has NO curvature and see where that takes you. I seem to recall Tom once saying as much... (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5083.msg98640#msg98640)
-
If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon.
Also including the ones used by FE to calculate the height of the sun above the flat earth, as I've pointed out before (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5399.msg105322#msg105322). Which means the sun could be at any height. Which is the same as saying that nobody can know anything about the sun's height, since how would you know how much curvature the light has?
It's much easier to assume the light has NO curvature and see where that takes you. I seem to recall Tom once saying as much... (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5083.msg98640#msg98640)
The problem for non-Euclidean spaces is that land and light and eyes and cameras would all be non-Euclidean. The only way to TELL that you're in a non-Euclidean space is to test things like whether the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees and whether pythagoras's theorem works.
The biggest, and simplest, way to show that Tom is talking more horseshit is to do this (either for real - or as a thought-experiment):
1) Draw 200 thirty mile diameter suns next to each other in a 6000 miles horizontal line from zenith where you're standing at sunset to zenith where it's midday.
2) These represent the positions where the sun was at zenith at 200 locations spaced 6/200 hours (1.8 minutes) apart.
3) Now draw lines (using Tom's magic perspective/non-euclidean/discrete weird-assed fake math) from the edges of these suns to my eye.
4) We know that the light from the top edge of the sun at sunset had to follow the exact same optical path as the bottom edge of the sun did 1.8 minutes earlier.
5) But if the sun is being pushed to the horizon by some funky non-linear space - then it's angular speed from zenith to horizon won't be constant.
6) Which means that the sun will not remain circular - it'll get squashed into an ellipse.
Since the sun NEVER looks elliptical - there cannot be anything other than true straight line propagation of light...and that defeats Flat Earthism.
Then think about the implications of being able to see sunlight reflected from the undersides of clouds when the sun is BELOW the horizon. This can't happen in Flat Earth (no matter how the light rays travel) because if they bent that much, they'd hit the ground before they reached the clouds.
The reason Tom has suddenly started talking about non-Euclidean geometry is because he's realized that his earlier statement the "Light travels in straight lines" was killing him. What he SHOULD have done was to say that he was mistaken about that - and that Electromagnetic Acceleration applies (his earlier theory). But since he now knows that he's painted himself into a corner - he's grasping at non-Euclidean straws to try to rectify the situation without losing face.
Well...it's not going to work. If light is curved for WHATEVER reason - then the light from everything is curved in the same exact way - so it would STILL look like the sun was way above the horizon.
The only way to get out of this one is to claim that sunlight, moonlight, starlight, planetlight, cometlight, etc doesn't travel in straight lines - but every OTHER source of light does.
That too would get decidedly funky - things like mirrors would start to behave weirdly.
There simply isn't a way to "fix" FET with anything remotely convincing.
Magic pixie dust (or magic perspective) that does whatever Tom commands it to do is the only way out.
-
Unless Tom has something else up his sleeve, I think he is cooked on this one. He is grasping at hypotheticals at this point - things that can't be empirically proven.
-
Ahhh! So now you're playing the "non-Euclidean geometry" card...I wondered how long it would be before you got THAT desperate.
I've asked you to demonstrate that the continuous rules of trigonometry and geometry apply to the real world on numerous occasions. You have yet to show that the perspective lines would actually continue approaching each other forever as Elucid predicted in his Euclidean geometry.
So you've given up with the other pathetic explanations? No more magic perspective?
My argument has been consistent. Questioning trigonometry's application to the real world is questioning Euclidean Geometry and Euclidean Space.
Well, I'm sorry - it doesn't help. If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon. When the sunlight peeks between the leaves of the tree - that final path of light from tree and from sun have to be exactly the same.
What are you talking about? Curved? No one said anything about curving.
Also, any geometry that distorted the position of the sun by that much would also distort it's shape to a similar degree - so the sun couldn't possibly be circular when it was distorted enough to reach the horizon.
Where do you get that the sun would be distorted?
Space is non-euclidean in the sense that geometry of space is discrete in that the perspective lines merge to a finite point at 90 degrees and are not continuous. That is what I have been telling you for a while now.
There has been some confusion. Let me clear some things up here:
1. Space is non-euclidean in the sense that geometry of space is discrete. Perspective lines merge to a finite point at 90 degrees and are not continuous.
2. The nature of perspective changes the ORIENTATION of bodies around you. A change of the orientation means that there is a change to where bodies are positioned around you. If you had a super powerful rifle you would need to shoot at the degree to which they appear in reality, not the degree Elucid predicted with his ideas.
3. If you could shoot a bullet at the sun on the horizon, it will hit the sun. It does not mean that the bullet "curved upwards" or whatever crazy thing you are imaging in your head.
I simplified things and said that the sun is at 90 degrees. The visible sun is always technically at some small degree above the horizon, even when it is setting. If you were to aim at the sun, your bullet would travel upwards above the horizon at a slight angle, in a straight line.
4. To bring this in line with our mechanism for sunset, and to talk more specifically about what is at exactly 90 degrees, 90 degrees is technically in line with the waves and imperfections of the earth surface. While the perspective lines are perfect, the surface of the earth is not perfect and little waves and imperfections of the earth's surface will provide a barrier where the sun and other bodies can hide behind as they merge with the perspective lines of the earth, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
If you were to shoot a bullet (or a laser) at the horizon at exactly 90 degrees, it would bring the bullet to the surface of the earth.
5. The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Under normal continuous Euclidean space it is impossible for a horizontal projectile to hit a wave below it; so it should travel forever. But the orienting nature of perspective (which is really just an allegory for how space presents itself to us) makes that wave appear in space at 90 degrees eye level, and so if you shoot at that angle that is where it will go.
The actual paths of these objects from a side view is immaterial. Your side view model is just a theoretical construct based on Euclidean space for how things *should* be positioned based on some continuous trigonometry rules. By pointing back to that model you and telling me that things are "curving" you are merely insisting that space operates according to Euclidean rules, when those continuous rules have never really been proven.
The entire scenario can be empirically described in terms of where things appear being where things are. What we see and what we experience is reality, and when we point at objects on the horizon we are really pointing at those objects, not into some void of infinity, and all of this trumps Elucid's hypothesis about a continuous universe.
-
The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Your ignorance of science and physics is telling. A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it. It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
-
The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Your ignorance of science and physics is telling. A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it. It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.
-
The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Your ignorance of science and physics is telling. A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it. It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.
Tom, you are correct, it is just an allegory for the discussion. But it did get me thinking. Bullet. Huh...what a funny allegory to use here.
Firing a bullet at close range is rather simple, but when shooting this bullet at the horizon, what else would the effect be.
Bingo! Coriolis Effect. Something that the long range shooter MUST take into account when firing at distances of over a 1000 meters. What is funny about the Coriolis effect is that is a result of "Round Earth Theory". Basically deflection of the bullet occurs due to the earth spinning. You can actually see this happening and experience it with a rifle, target and about 1000 meters of space. Nothing to hard on this one.
I know you will not actually go and do this, but how does the Flat Earth take this effect into account.
-
The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Your ignorance of science and physics is telling. A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it. It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.
Well, it's a bad one and not obvious. You repeatedly said bullets fly straight lines. How can anyone take you seriously?
-
The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Your ignorance of science and physics is telling. A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it. It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.
Well, it's a bad one and not obvious. You repeatedly said bullets fly straight lines. How can anyone take you seriously?
I clearly said "bullet/laser" and remarked "(or a laser)" at some points. You even quoted me where I said "bullet/laser" in your above remarks. It takes only a little reading comprehension to understand what that means to the discussion.
-
The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Your ignorance of science and physics is telling. A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it. It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.
Tom, you are correct, it is just an allegory for the discussion. But it did get me thinking. Bullet. Huh...what a funny allegory to use here.
Firing a bullet at close range is rather simple, but when shooting this bullet at the horizon, what else would the effect be.
Bingo! Coriolis Effect. Something that the long range shooter MUST take into account when firing at distances of over a 1000 meters. What is funny about the Coriolis effect is that is a result of "Round Earth Theory". Basically deflection of the bullet occurs due to the earth spinning. You can actually see this happening and experience it with a rifle, target and about 1000 meters of space. Nothing to hard on this one.
I know you will not actually go and do this, but how does the Flat Earth take this effect into account.
Funny you mention that. One of my best friends is a former world champion and multi-time world record holder in the 6mm 1000 yard shooting sport. Ironically he is the one that alerted me to the FE delusion. He lives in Montana, the home of many of the whackier conspiracy theories and a buddy of his came out as a FEer. I was skeptical and that's when I found this place. Will the circle be unbroken?
-
The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Your ignorance of science and physics is telling. A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it. It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.
Well, it's a bad one and not obvious. You repeatedly said bullets fly straight lines. How can anyone take you seriously?
I clearly said "bullet/laser" and remarked "(or a laser)" at some points. It takes only a little reading comprehension to understand what that means to the discussion.
With the crazy things you are stooping to these days it's hard to tell.
-
The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Your ignorance of science and physics is telling. A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it. It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.
This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.
Tom, you are correct, it is just an allegory for the discussion. But it did get me thinking. Bullet. Huh...what a funny allegory to use here.
Firing a bullet at close range is rather simple, but when shooting this bullet at the horizon, what else would the effect be.
Bingo! Coriolis Effect. Something that the long range shooter MUST take into account when firing at distances of over a 1000 meters. What is funny about the Coriolis effect is that is a result of "Round Earth Theory". Basically deflection of the bullet occurs due to the earth spinning. You can actually see this happening and experience it with a rifle, target and about 1000 meters of space. Nothing to hard on this one.
I know you will not actually go and do this, but how does the Flat Earth take this effect into account.
Funny you mention that. One of my best friends is a former world champion and multi-time world record holder in the 6mm 1000 yard shooting sport. Ironically he is the one that alerted me to the FE delusion. He lives in Montana, the home of many of the whackier conspiracy theories and a buddy of his came out as a FEer. I was skeptical and that's when I found this place. Will the circle be unbroken?
Small world. That's awesome and scary at the same time.
-
1. Space is non-euclidean in the sense that geometry of space is discrete. Perspective lines merge to a finite point at 90 degrees and are not continuous.
Evidence? Go look at a field laid out in rows. Stand in the middle. Each 'set' will appear to converge at a different point. Look diagonally. Same thing in a different direction. So where's this '90 degrees' you are talking about?
2. The nature of perspective changes the ORIENTATION of bodies around you. A change of the orientation means that there is a change to where bodies are positioned around you. If you had a super powerful rifle you would need to shoot at the degree to which they appear in reality, not the degree Elucid predicted with his ideas.
A sniper shot relies on Euclidean geometry to hit it's target, and determine distance in some cases. https://www.quora.com/How-do-snipers-use-math
3. If you could shoot a bullet at the sun on the horizon, it will hit the sun. It does not mean that the bullet "curved upwards" or whatever crazy thing you are imaging in your head.
I simplified things and said that the sun is at 90 degrees. The visible sun is always technically at some small degree above the horizon, even when it is setting. If you were to aim at the sun, your bullet would travel upwards above the horizon at a slight angle, in a straight line.
Where is your math or anything showing it should always be a small degree above the horizon?
4. To bring this in line with our mechanism for sunset, and to talk more specifically about what is at exactly 90 degrees, 90 degrees is technically in line with the waves and imperfections of the earth surface. While the perspective lines are perfect, the surface of the earth is not perfect and little waves and imperfections of the earth's surface will provide a barrier where the sun and other bodies can hide behind as they merge with the perspective lines of the earth, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
If you were to shoot a bullet (or a laser) at the horizon at exactly 90 degrees, it would bring the bullet to the surface of the earth.
This is just 100% incorrect. A laser fired parallel to the surface of the Earth will not hit the Earth (discounting refraction). This is shown in the dip angle to the horizon, which Rowbotham's claims on are founded on guesswork and wishful thinking. He states neither the difference between the measuring devices, nor does he note the claimed dip. In addition modern technology is far more accurate as well.
5. The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.
Under normal continuous Euclidean space it is impossible for a horizontal projectile to hit a wave below it; so it should travel forever. But the orienting nature of perspective (which is really just an allegory for how space presents itself to us) makes that wave appear in space at 90 degrees eye level, and so if you shoot at that angle that is where it will go.
The actual paths of these objects from a side view is immaterial. Your side view model is just a theoretical construct based on Euclidean space for how things *should* be positioned based on some continuous trigonometry rules. By pointing back to that model you and telling me that things are "curving" you are merely insisting that space operates according to Euclidean rules, when those continuous rules have never really been proven.
The entire scenario can be empirically described in terms of where things appear being where things are. What we see and what we experience is reality, and when we point at objects on the horizon we are really pointing at those objects, not into some void of infinity, and all of this trumps Elucid's hypothesis about a continuous universe.
We are indeed 'pointing' at those objects, but those objects are not at a 90 degree angle.
Once again, we can show Euclid's math works at every testable distance. The burden is on you to prove that it doesn't work at longer distances, and where/how it breaks down. No begging the question, and no assumptions of something unproven allowed.
-
This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.
Sorry, but on a site about flat earth it isn't at all obvious what a participant considers allegory and what a participant claims as fact.
-
1. Space is non-euclidean in the sense that geometry of space is discrete. Perspective lines merge to a finite point at 90 degrees and are not continuous.
Tom, your lack of knowledge and propensity towards fantastical thinking really hurt you here. Saying space is discrete has nothing to do with perspective. Discrete space is a feature that is described in quantum physics. You CLEARLY have no idea what it means. It does not say "perspective lines" meet. Period. To claim otherwise will require you to prove it.
2. The nature of perspective changes the ORIENTATION of bodies around you. A change of the orientation means that there is a change to where bodies are positioned around you. If you had a super powerful rifle you would need to shoot at the degree to which they appear in reality, not the degree Elucid predicted with his ideas.
But it doesn't change the actual position of the objects. Imagine a light pole and a small post in the ground. At night, the post would cast a shadow on the ground. No matter how you choose to orient yourself to the pole and post, the shadow will never change. That is because, regardless of your position, the objects have a fixed coordinate in space and they do not move. Same thing with the sun. it's light will shine essentially straight out regardless of your orientation or perspective.
3. If you could shoot a bullet at the sun on the horizon, it will hit the sun. It does not mean that the bullet "curved upwards" or whatever crazy thing you are imaging in your head.
No, for f**ks sake, no!!! As the bullet approached the sun, it would pass 3000 miles below it. It would appear to be noon to the bullet as it passed below the sun. You say perspective doesn't change the actual position of objects, now you are saying it does. Give it a rest already. Ironically though, you are right, the sun is on the horizon. Exactly where it would be as it sets on a globe. You simply can't prove your position and it makes you look like a fool.
4. To bring this in line with our mechanism for sunset, and to talk more specifically about what is at exactly 90 degrees, 90 degrees is technically in line with the waves and imperfections of the earth surface. While the perspective lines are perfect, the surface of the earth is not perfect and little waves and imperfections of the earth's surface will provide a barrier where the sun and other bodies can hide behind as they merge with the perspective lines of the earth, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
Nope - not true. Take your dime example. Place that dime, on edge, on the ground and walk as far as you'd like away from the elephant. When does it block it out? (the shocking answer is never) Your analogy requires the dime to be between your eye and the elephant. Waves are not. The sun, in your model, is 3000 miles about the waves.
Under normal continuous Euclidean space it is impossible for a horizontal projectile to hit a wave below it; so it should travel forever. But the orienting nature of perspective (which is really just an allegory for how space presents itself to us) makes that wave appear in space at 90 degrees eye level, and so if you shoot at that angle that is where it will go.
Here we go again with perspective moving objects, which I have you quoted as saying it doesn't. What is your stance??? The answer to your silly setup here is that the magic projectile will fly at the same distance about the waves because it, too, must be affected by your "perspective lines."
Tom, it is your lie, tell it how you'd like, but you just look ridiculous. The bullet thing really shows how off in your thinking you are. If the bullet really would hit the sun, the sun would be sitting on the surface of your flat Earth. You clearly failed to account for actual positions, not apparent positions.
-
The actual paths of these objects from a side view is immaterial. Your side view model is just a theoretical construct based on Euclidean space for how things *should* be positioned based on some continuous trigonometry rules.
Actually, the side view models you are looking at here are composed of pixels. They are a representation of a discrete space - so why can't you draw one - just one, not two from two different perspectives - that represents what you say is actually happening? Or are you saying there IS no objective reality?
Here's what I'd like to know:
You say a perfect straight-line bullet fired perfectly horizontally at the setting sun would hit it. And I agree that it would, eventually, if we discount all other relative motion that's going on.
I can't see how that happens in your version of reality, though.
Let's suppose this perfect straight-line bullet is slow enough to follow in a helicopter. So we stand on a cliff, aim perfectly horizontally at the setting sun bisecting the horizon across the ocean, and pull the trigger. Then we get in the chopper and follow it. We take a radio with us, and an observer back on the cliff confirms that we are converging perfectly on the horizon, heading straight for the sun. We fly and fly and the bullet just keeps going, a couple of hundred feet above the waves. We catch up with the sun (which we've paused for the duration of this experiment), and it passes 3000 miles overhead.
Why didn't the bullet hit the sun? We aimed right at it and fired in a perfectly straight line, and our observer on the radio told us we were heading straight for the sun - but somehow we've managed to 'hit' the bottom couple of hundred feet of 3000 miles of empty air that we couldn't even see when we took the shot!
Let's say we try again, and this time we aim up a couple of degrees, just to make absolutely sure. We follow the bullet again, and it does get higher this time, but it still passes almost 3000 miles below the sun.
To me, it seems inarguable that if we want to hit a sun that is in reality 6000 miles away and 3000 miles in the air over (approximately) flat ground we must fire it at an angle to the ground that will cause it to rise 3000 miles over the course of 6000 travelled horizontally. And if that's the case, then that's the same angle the sun must appear to us in the sky. Doesn't that make sense to you?
-
The actual paths of these objects from a side view is immaterial. Your side view model is just a theoretical construct based on Euclidean space for how things *should* be positioned based on some continuous trigonometry rules.
Actually, the side view models you are looking at here are composed of pixels. They are a representation of a discrete space - so why can't you draw one - just one, not two from two different perspectives - that represents what you say is actually happening? Or are you saying there IS no objective reality?
Here's what I'd like to know:
You say a perfect straight-line bullet fired perfectly horizontally at the setting sun would hit it. And I agree that it would, eventually, if we discount all other relative motion that's going on.
I can't see how that happens in your version of reality, though.
Let's suppose this perfect straight-line bullet is slow enough to follow in a helicopter. So we stand on a cliff, aim perfectly horizontally at the setting sun bisecting the horizon across the ocean, and pull the trigger. Then we get in the chopper and follow it. We take a radio with us, and an observer back on the cliff confirms that we are converging perfectly on the horizon, heading straight for the sun. We fly and fly and the bullet just keeps going, a couple of hundred feet above the waves. We catch up with the sun (which we've paused for the duration of this experiment), and it passes 3000 miles overhead.
Why didn't the bullet hit the sun? We aimed right at it and fired in a perfectly straight line, and our observer on the radio told us we were heading straight for the sun - but somehow we've managed to 'hit' the bottom couple of hundred feet of 3000 miles of empty air that we couldn't even see when we took the shot!
Let's say we try again, and this time we aim up a couple of degrees, just to make absolutely sure. We follow the bullet again, and it does get higher this time, but it still passes almost 3000 miles below the sun.
To me, it seems inarguable that if we want to hit a sun that is in reality 6000 miles away and 3000 miles in the air over (approximately) flat ground we must fire it at an angle to the ground that will cause it to rise 3000 miles over the course of 6000 travelled horizontally. And if that's the case, then that's the same angle the sun must appear to us in the sky. Doesn't that make sense to you?
Congratulations! You just won the 3DGeek prize for most coherent explanation that'll screw with Tom's head!
This is beautiful. I may print and frame it!
So - yeah. If a hypothetical physical object that travelled in a perfectly straight line (Tom's "bullet/laser") that is aimed at the horizon, where the sun APPEARS to be...then Tom says we'd hit the sun (even though it's 3000 miles up in the sky).
Rather than following it with a helicopter. Let's tie a piece of string around the bullet with a plumb-line attached to it (it's a thought-experiment plumb-bob with zero air resistance). I'm 5'10" tall - so we'll make the string about 5'7" long - just long enough so it touches the ground as the bullet leaves the barrel.
As the bullet moves away from me - the plumb bob just touches the ground...I'm watching it carefully through a telescope and at no point does it NOT touch the ground because "The Earth Is Flat" and I fired it at the sun - which was at the horizon at the time.
As it impacts the sun (as Tom, surprisingly, says it must) - the end of the string is both touching the ground and 3,000 miles ABOVE the ground.
Weird or what?
I think Tom just shot himself in the foot with what I'm going to name "The Bishop Bullet". Now he's in an even deeper hole.
You could to the experiment with a crazy-powerful laser - put it on a tripod, say 5' above the ground and aim it at the setting sun - then have someone run along next to the laser checking how high above the ground it is (should always be 5') until they are 6,000 miles away and under the noontime sun. Either:
1) The laser wasn't aimed horizontally in the first place - but rather at an angle of 30 degrees to the horizon...which we'd know after we walk just two feet away from it and discover that the beam is now 6' above the ground.
...OR...
2) Tom is wrong and laser doesn't hit the sun after all - in which case the laser light went straight and the sunlight bent - over the same distance.
...OR...
3) The sun leaves a gigantic scorch mark when it rests on the ground at the point when the laser hits it.
...OR...
4) The world isn't flat and the ground curves away below the laser beam so the (initially) horizontal laser beam can indeed hit the sun while it's also 93 million miles above our head.
Anyway - Nice one JocelynSachs! Very nice indeed!
-
Congratulations! You just won the 3DGeek prize for most coherent explanation that'll screw with Tom's head!
This is beautiful. I may print and frame it!
Very high praise! I'm quite envious :)