*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #100 on: November 21, 2017, 07:00:57 PM »


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.

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #101 on: November 21, 2017, 07:13:11 PM »


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.
 

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #102 on: November 21, 2017, 07:25:57 PM »


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?


Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #103 on: November 21, 2017, 07:30:28 PM »


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.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 07:35:06 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #104 on: November 21, 2017, 07:33:40 PM »


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?
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #105 on: November 21, 2017, 07:34:18 PM »


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.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #106 on: November 21, 2017, 07:43:23 PM »


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.


Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #107 on: November 21, 2017, 07:55:22 PM »
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.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #108 on: November 21, 2017, 11:13:11 PM »
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.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #109 on: November 22, 2017, 05:26:22 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 04:07:32 PM by StinkyOne »
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #110 on: November 22, 2017, 12:18:57 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 01:52:03 PM by JocelynSachs »

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #111 on: November 22, 2017, 11:00:33 PM »
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!
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: What is and isn't proof
« Reply #112 on: November 23, 2017, 04:40:28 AM »

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  :)