21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 06:49:14 AM »

Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.

Why? I don't see the relevance of bringing in a specific distance and height of objects and plotting a diagram of them. With the topic, we are talking about perspective and it working at distances and you want to bring in a specific dimension diagram of objects at a distance.

Aperture is not the only relevant thing.

What a way to criticize what I'm saying, that aperture is all that's relevant to perspective (I didn't imply it was all there is). You people completely ignored it and assumed all angles are visible to the eye since light is in straight lines and missed that we can't perceive every angle due to limitations of aperture and perspective angles to which we perceive as a horizon and point of convergence.

Lights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.

Correct, the horizon is when the perspective lines approach each other at an angle we can't perceive, it's an illusion of perspective.
Farther perspective lines will converge steeper due to them being at a greater horizontal distance from our line of sight.

The sun, in your model, is 6000  miles away and 3000 miles up.

Who said my model? I'd be willing to entertain that the sun is at these dimensions but not claiming it must be and is not relevant to my point.

That's a ~20° angle of incidence. You have plenty resolution to see it up in the sky. Basic perspective.

Only, the sun's height line of descent would be steeper due to its vertical distance from our line of sight and so descends to meet the imperceptible angle at a larger angle. Think of a rail at a relatively far horizontal distance from your line of sight to convergence, the angle it reaches the point of convergence is larger due to its longer deviation from our line of sight. The same happens with the sun, it meets the horizon at the top of our uniform frame, where our entire field of vision converges. The top of that frame would be the steepest descent into the horizon. Higher objects move farther before reaching the same apparent horizon, which means they descend at a steeper angle, which is in proportion with a farther actual distance.
All objects will descend into our horizon line, which is from an imperceptible angle of view, by angling into it with accordance to altitude.
The angle of incidence you brought up misses that at higher altitudes, the perspective lines are meeting the same apparent horizon line from our perspective, this horizon defines all apparent relative movements and descents into convergence.

End of the story.

Hardly, an excuse to be able to forget it all won't work.

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: 2000 year old Antikythera Mechanism proves FE belief.

« on: October 06, 2017, 03:34:34 AM »

The Antikythera mechanism is quite an extraordinary mapping of celestial movements. It could predict for centuries. It wasn't based on a globe or heliocentrism, it didn't need it.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 03:26:32 AM »

How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?

They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.

Except I asked about intersecting, not converging.  It is obvious that lines converge at the vanishing point.  What is not obvious is when they intersect.

They are the same thing:


When lines intersect, they are converging. You asked how I distinguish between intersecting lines and the lacking of the visual acuity perceiving distances between two points. The answer is that the point where we lack the ability to distinguish between distances is the point of convergence. 'No distance' can only be represented by a point.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 03:18:43 AM »

It's ANGLES smaller than we can visualize, so the distance to the vanishing point depends on the size of the object or the distance between the perspective lines.

The distance between perspective lines at the line of sight decreases away from it not just straight out but out to the side as well. So, the apparent distances between perspective lines decrease as they are farther from our sight, so the perspectives lines appear to angle more when out of your line of sight to the horizon point within your line of sight. This means your field of vision as a frame shrinks to a point of convergence.
 
The distances between the perspective lines farther out the side get smaller since they are at a distance and so converge in association with your line of sight to the horizon.

So if something is large enough, we can see it at an arbitrarily large distance, no?

Yes, if it is a relatively large object like the sun, it can be seen in the sky a far distance. It also meets the horizon line which is the vertical angle of view, and the horizon is formed at an imperceptible angle.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 01:42:48 AM »

Hey Super, can you explain to me how a low cloud can cast a shadow on a cloud higher in the sky around sunrise/sunset? For that to happen, the light source has to actually be below the level of the lowest cloud.

That is not relevant to the topic here (I frankly don't want to continue a conversation in the wrong thread), make a thread on it or point to me one to discuss it if you care to.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 01:39:50 AM »

No - they never "merge together" - that would happen only at infinity...which is OK in my view of perspective - but if your claim for perspective shrinking things to zero size only happens at 10 miles or whatever - then no - they have not "merged together".
But that can only happen at infinity - and the FE sun doesn't get to infinity...which is why it can never "set".

They never claimed it was at a nearby distance of 10 miles. Also, no, perspective lines meeting at infinity doesn't match reality, as I have pointed out. Perspective lines are not parallel, they are convergent. The horizon could only be a finite distance in human perspective.

Yeah - exactly.  The angle from your eye to the Cessna changes REALLY quickly when it's overhead and slows down to a barely perceptible angular change as it goes off into the distance.

It couldn't descend at a more constant rate by what you said, where vertical lines appear closer and closer together at farther distances regardless of object height. However, your model doesn't take the converging angular distances into account but assumes they never meet like parallel lines.

You FE sun would do the exact same thing.  It would track across the sky at crazy high speeds when overhead - and slow down to a crawl later in the day.

Already addressed in that post by Tom:

Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.

At higher altitudes, the vertical lines become more consistent in apparent distances.

BUT THIS ISN'T WHAT THE SUN REALLY DOES.   A simple measurement of the sun angle at regular intervals shows that it crosses the sky at a CONSTANT angular rate of around 15 degrees per hour.

Yeah, and it would do that with a high sun descending due to perspective on a flat plane.

The Flat Earth sun wouldn't do that - it would be maybe 30 degrees per hour when overhead and slow down to one or two degrees per hour in late afternoon.

From our perspective the horizon, the vertical 'planks' out in the distance converge to the same apparent angular distance as directly above, it gradually does at farther distances and the sun does it since it is beyond that point of convergence of vertical lines, and so descends constantly.

Your Cessna example is EXACTLY what we're saying your FE sun would do.   Since it clearly doesn't do that (and it doesn't change in size like the Cessna does either) - it's CLEARLY going in a circle around us.
Put this way:  If an object remains at the same size no matter what (true of Sun, moon, planets, comets and stars) then even with your "magic perspective" it cannot be changing in distance.

The sun does descend at a constant rate like the Cessna does to a larger extent at it's altitude, as you have pointed out.
You clearly haven't looked into the the position with the FES and Tom Bishop with the angular size of the sun as it descends, which you should before making a claim on it. Descent is independent of angular size as well.

If it's tracking across the sky at a constant angular rate of 15 degrees per hour and not changing distance - then it MUST be moving in a circle...not sliding along a horizontal plane as FET would have us believe.

And as explained already, it's high altitude would render it at a constant descent due to converging angular distances of vertical perspective lines.

So the only way you have out of this mess is to declare yet ANOTHER property of magic perspective.

It is not another new 'property', it has been known in basic perspective that perspective lines converge and aren't parallel.

* Magic perspective causes the sun to appear to be on the horizon.

Perpsective lines meet at a horizon, that forms the horizon.

* Magic perspective causes parallel lines to meet at the horizon.

Perspective lines aren't parallel, that's quite obvious in art.

* Magic perspective explains why the sizes of sun, moon, etc never change with distance.

It says no such thing, there isn't a breach of angular diameter here. Look into the FE views on the Sun.

Basically, so long as you never let yourself be tied down as to the actual path of photons through space - you'll continue to pile more and more unlikely properties into this vague "magic perspective" rabbit hole and hope we never find an inconsistency.

The path of photons into our eyes is limited by our perspective due to limited aperture, we can't perceive infinite light to see every angular distance distinction.

I suppose it's your best strategy - vagueness is definitely your best defense these days.

They aren't being vague here, it is a basic deducible concept.

If the jet was 10 times higher than the cessna and moving at 10 times the speed - and they were both overhead at the exact same instant and travelling in the exact same direction - then they'd appear to be in the same spot in your field of view.

This misses the point that vertical perspective lines meet at a high altitude and farther up to that point, the apparent angular distances between the vertical perspective lines become more similar since it is all viewed from you to the horizon and up. This implies a more constant descent of higher altitude moving objects.

The rate of change of angle would be the same for the jet as for the cessna...the law of similar triangles (or simple trigonometry)  proves that.

Which is wrong for our perspective of high and moving objects and disproven by the fact that apparent angular distances recede at distances even with vertical lines and looking up.

Go learn some high-school geometry...or draw a diagram if you don't believe me...I really can't be bothered to teach you basic math skills today.

They don't need to, you just keep missing the point.

That simply doesn't work.  So you're saying that once they are BEYOND the vanishing point...what exactly happens?

They disappear from our line of sight.

You know you're REALLY going to have to tell us where the photons go in these circumstances.

They may vary by other conditions but as interpreted by the limited aperture of your eyes, angular distances are indistinguishable after a finite distance, represented by convergent perspective lines.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 12:50:44 AM »

To see if I understand properly, it sounds like you are saying that the change in angular velocity of an object as it passes has to do with the distance from the observer. This means that something farther away will have less change in angular velocity, until at some distance (say, 3000 miles), the change in angular velocity goes to zero. Is that correct?

Yes, the vertical perspective lines to the sky converge to where the angular distances between meet across to your horizon.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 12:38:04 AM »

You SEE with your eyes that the two lines obviously meet - not very far (it seems) beyond the limits of the camera's lens or our visual acuity.  You never actually DO see the tracks meeting - but you presume that they must because you can draw the two lines on top of the photo - and it looks like they meet somewhere just fractionally beyond the resolution of the camera.

The limits of our visual acuity is the vanishing point. You said that we can perceive the distance between railroad tracks forever, but we can't, they converge at our angular resolution limit because we can't distinguish distances between points beyond that point, angles smaller than we can visualize.

So you conclude that parallel lines meet at some distance from the eye like maybe 10 miles or 100 miles or something...and base all of FET's optical properties on this, seemingly reasonable, claim.

That's our perspective indeed.

Now, let's talk about the building on the left.  You can draw a line at roof level and another one at ground level and see that they intersect...but what you're claiming is that this intersection is happening at some distance from us - 10 miles, 100 miles - whatever.   I'm claiming that...yes, the lines obviously intersect - but the DISTANCE at which they intersect is infinite.

Which means they never intersect, because infinity has no distance.

Now I hear you complaining.

About your flawed model of human perspective, indeed.

But look CAREFULLY at them in the picture.  Do you see that the separation between the columns in the photograph is smaller in the distance than it is near to the camera?

Yes, that's quite clear with our perception of far away distances.

So here is what's happening.  The closer together the roof line and the pavement line get - the more and more compressed the distance INTO the scene the picture becomes.   The horizontal spacing between columns get smaller and smaller.

This is correct, and my point deals exactly with this.

So when the roof/pavement lines would be VERY close to touching, they'd be representing something a billion miles into the scene - and at the precise point where the "perspective lines" touch - we are INFINITELY far into the scene.

Geometric lines, yes. They would have to more and more shallow and will be 0 at infinity, which is never. This assumes we have infinite aperture, which we don't, our perspective appears to intersect when distances become indistinguishable from a point.

X, Y and Z are *ALL* shrinking as we go further into the distance.

So when the X or Y distance hits zero - so the Z spacings of our columns ALSO hits zero - and you get an infinite number of columns packed together into that last screen pixel as we approach the vanishing point.

An THAT is why parallel lines meet at INFINITE Z and not 10 miles or 100 miles as FE'ers seem to believe.

Except our perspective lines of our vision aren't parallel.

Angular distances decrease to the limits of aperture of the optics so the distances between are indistinguishable, this is why the vanishing point and the horizon is finite, not infinite. You miss this entirely and pretend geometric angles can represent this when it can't.
The horizon is simply the distance in which the ground and sky are at angles smaller than the eye can see and so the horizon would be an illusion based on this.
You simply can't distinguish distances since your line of sight converges distances.

I can quite understand why this fooled you - and I have to say that it hurts my brain even thinking about it.  But regardless - this is what truly happens.

We aren't being fooled here, it's just you misunderstanding human perspective and applying it to geometric lines.

x' = k.x / z
   y' = k.y / z

(x,y,z) is a point in the real/virtual world (in a coordinate system where the "camera" is at (0,0,0) and z is distance away from the camera).
(x', y') is the point on the screen where that point ends up (in a coordinate system where the center of the screen is (0,0)).
   k     is a constant that relates to the 'lens' of the virtual camera and the size/resolution of the screen.

These two equations are built into every 3D computer game - every simulation, every CGI movie.  It's so fundamental that it's even built into the hardware of 3D graphics cards in your PC.

We do this because it's the only formula that produces realistic pictures.

So if one railroad rail is 1 meter to the right of the camera (x=+1) - then at what value of 'z' does it arrive at the vanishing point?

  x' = 0
  x  = +1

What is 'z'?

  0 = k . 1 / z

  z = k / 0

...hmmm - that's a problem because you can't divide by zero without getting an infinity for 'z'.

And that's the mathematical reason why parallel lines meet at infinity under perspective.

That's not perspective. Perspective would be the point which the distances between rails become unresolvable from a point.
You take parallel lines and they basically never meet, but you can't use them for perspective because perspective lines are not parallel, implying they meet at a distance by the angular distances receding.
Parallel lines meet at infinite distance, which means never, so you represent perspective lines as

When in reality, they are:

Therefore what you claim with the VP doesn't work.

The height of the image is the height of the subject (the tree) multiplied by the distance from the pinhole from the film and divided by the distance to the subject (the tree).

You make the mistake here as well. If I draw a straight line at an angle from an object at X height above the ground to the ground (where the the distance between objects to have a geometric vanishing point as you describe), it will always be at an angle above the ground unless the lines are parallel (which would mean infinite distance), so you conclude that the point of convergence or the horizon is at infinity. However, if this were true, then perspective lines could never approach each other, but they do, they would have to be parallel, which they aren't. This tears apart your flawed perspective model that doesn't work in reality.

The only way to discount this derivation of the math for perspective is to deny that light travels in straight lines - or to deny that the method of similar triangles is valid.

Actually, all I need to claim is that optics always have finite aperture for perceiving angular distance, and then what you claim is false when brought up against reality. Optics do always have finite aperture, therefore you are incorrect/

So the pinhole camera is proof of the equations - and the equations are proof of the laws of perspective.
The observation that perspective operates in Z as well as in X and Y is further proof that FET's concept of finite vanishing points is untrue.

No they aren't, they fail to represent perspective lines in reality, and so don't relate to perspective at all.

I think this argument is completely watertight - and so far, nobody in FE land has been willing to even discuss it.   Tom just says "it's just a diagram"...which is a rather fundamentalist anti-science, anti-math position - and if he were honest and consistent then he'd have to call "bullshit" on all of Rowbothams diagrams too!

A diagram of geometric lines isn't gonna represent the variable of human perspective limitations.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 05, 2017, 10:49:33 PM »

How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?

They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 05, 2017, 10:48:07 PM »

Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?

I don't necessarily accept that but am willing to grant it for this case, since light can travel in straight lines and what I'm saying here be correct.

It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.

Not to perspective, I don't need to explain the biology of the eye to explain perspective lines, or that eyes have aperture like a lens.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 04, 2017, 06:56:48 AM »

uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things?

Light, your eyes, and aperture. Basic.

How do the eye works?

You asked how our vision works in response to my claim of how our vision is limited. This isn't biology we are discussing here, take that somewhere else.

I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.

We don't, there you go making up nonsense about how what I'm saying connects to other things and something I supposedly refuse along with another group.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 04, 2017, 06:48:26 AM »

Your post basically just says "no it doesn't", "this isn't how it works" and stuff like that.

I'm correcting your misunderstandings and nonsensical rebuttals to this video, I included illustrations that I presume would help.

It doesn't say WHY you believe that.

I pointed out that it's because we observe it, not this 'infinite angular distance perception' nonsense.

My post very carefully explains - point by point - WHY the original video is wrong.

And gets it wrong, and that's a problem, so I point it out.

That's how rational debate works. You're treating this like the Monty Python "Argument sketch".

Which is why I pointed out what you got wrong, and I explained myself, it's up to you to be rational and consider what I'm saying and explain yourself more.

Your photo of train tracks doesn't ACTUALLY show the train tracks meeting.  Let's zoom into it:



Nope - they don't meet.

That's because we can perceive the distances between the tracks at our distance, just significantly more compressed and approaching the same point of convergence which frames reach a point at due to the convergence of our vision with our angular resolution. Doesn't rebut anything I said. You exclaimed that at every possible finite distance, we can perceive the same distances of parallel lines and can never meet at indistinguishable differences with our eyes, which is clearly false by the sight of converging parallel lines all pointing to one direction. This is impossible in what you claim here, as lines can't approach (graphing two approaching lines will have them meet at a finite distance between coordinates).

You say that we can't see things a billion miles away - but that's not true.

No, I said apparent distances are not perceivable at such distances to the limits of vision with perceptible angular distances. I brought this up so I'll quote it:

The distances between become less distinguishable at farther distances and so the farther distances produce no such effect, relative to the distances to the point of convergence, the above frames sizes become more similar until they are indistinguishable differences from our standpoint.

Seeing celestial objects is not the same as perceiving angular distances by a point, the sun's descent follows these similar angular distances with a consistent descent. How this connects is that distances we can't perceive (being at a point) represent perspective lines that converge. Angular diameter however is gonna vary by the size and distance while having no bearing on our frame convergence. This is why the sun could be said to be beyond the apex of perspective lines, in that it is beyond perceivable distances with frames and so moves through them as celestial object at a consistent rate.

In RET, the  Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is visible to the naked-eye and it's 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away.  Even in your flat-earth "universe" you can certainly see the star "polaris" from somewhere near to the equator - and in your idea of the world, it's at least 6,700 miles away.

It's pretty large to be seen and much larger frame angles, basically the field of view in the environment through which the lines meet. Distances traversed would be convergent in that it's movement would be more consistent as distances appear to converge quite similarly relative to our overall horizon distance.

So we CAN see things that are 6,700 miles away...for sure...even in FET.   So I certainly COULD see hypothetical train tracks that were going out to 6,700 miles.

 
Inaccurate logic, again. Seeing an object at a far distance doesn't imply all perceived distances are perceptible at every possible distance from us.
They reach apparent angles at which we can't distinguish from a point, our field of vision does that, the point of convergence.

The problem with the idea that train tracks meet sometime before infinity is this:   Suppose parallel train tracks met at 5 miles from your eye.   What would happen if we climbed a ladder so we could see 10 miles?

   
That's analogous to saying, "What if we move farther forward and use that to represent our perspective at a previous point?", which is faulty logic. Perception is unique to each location, the fact that angular distances converge to a point from our perspective isn't an objective phenomena that represents all distances

I can only think of three possibilities:

1) They meet at 5 miles, cross over and then get further and further apart until they are as far apart as they are up-close.

2) They meet at 5 miles, and then continue on as one straight line for the next 5 miles.   That doesn't work because light travels in straight lines - and the straight train tracks would have an abrupt kink in them at 5 miles....so the light from beyond 5 miles would have to kink too.

3) They simply "vanish" at 5 miles.

Your frame (field of vision rectangle) would be larger at higher altitudes and therefore more distance to have lines approach each other beyond your visual angle to reach an apparent point. Perspective lines broaden and you visualize farther.
Video example:

What would happen if we had the entire ground in front of us completely covered in parallel train tracks - parallel train tracks going off towards the horizon left and right of us for 1000 miles in each direction.

They would all branch off to a horizon surrounding us where perspective lines reach an angle imperceptible to us, creating this horizon.

What would you see?   If they just "vanish" at 5 miles - what do we see on a clear day when we can see 10 miles?   If they shrank to a point and then carried on as a thin line, then all of our view of the world would be a triangle with some kind of gap either side of the tracks at the horizon.   If they crossed over...wow...would that be a mind-bending trip!

They would reach a point where your frame of view shrinks into a dot beyond your perceivable angles of vision, you can't visualize beyond that from your standpoint, if that changed, so would the horizon line and point of convergence.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 04, 2017, 05:18:18 AM »

how, pray tell, does our vision works?

It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point. As frames shrink, they reach a point of convergence as seen by our perception. This is fundamental, there isn't magical non-intersecting lines angled at a compressed frame where apparent distances converge, they do intersect due to the fact that our field of vision shrinks to an imperceptible angular distance, that's a point from our perspective, the point of convergence. The video here got that right, and the OP brings nonsensical gobblygook to run it over, and fails.

It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 03, 2017, 08:33:02 AM »

The picture he's looking at shows that the further away the object gets, the smaller the angle to the ground it gets.  This is reasonable - light travels in straight lines.  If we extended the diagram off to the right with more and more equally spaced suns, the angle would get smaller and smaller - right?

Correct, the angle relative to us would, I don't see where this could go with perspective, but lets see.

At a billion miles, the angle would be a tiny fraction of a degree - at a trillion miles, still smaller - and at INFINITY the angle would be ZERO...or as close to zero as matters (the math term is "Infinitesimal" - one divided by infinity - not strictly zero - but essentially that).

No, that is not how it works in terms of perspective.
You have optical angular resolution which greatly depends on wavelengths of light correlating with optics aperture. Using 'frames', which represent our field of vision, they decrease size at farther distances until they indistinguishable in terms of distance from the eye.

The black rectangles would be the frames.
Real world example:

This IS the standard law of perspective.

 
No it isn't, it's unjustified gobblygook that is a load of nonsense.

The further two parallel train tracks lead away from you, the narrower the perceived angle between them.  But even at a billion miles, they don't quite meet.  Only infinitely far from the eye to those train tracks come together.

You can't perceive a billion miles, they converge because distances become indistinguishable at such distances.

He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".

It isn't, it is missing how optical perspective actually works and replacing it with geometry without basis in reality.

But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero.   If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?

The angle is decreasing because of how distances and wavelengths of light hit our eyes or however you are viewing it, the geometric angle indeed plays a role but the angle is not our perception.

So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

That diagram is without basis in reality, it doesn't relate to distance perception at all.

At 2:43, he's just added some suns moving downwards - but the sun isn't moving downwards in the real world - only in the eye of the viewer.   The original diagram is showing the path of the actual photons...the rays of light traveling from the sun to the viewer.

Those window shades aren't either but they follow such an apparent path.
Photon angles from the sun don't correlate to how we perceive them in reality, they work with how we distinguish distances between points at differing distances from our eyes.

He's overlaid a side-on diagram onto a sloping wall...WTF?  How does that prove anything?  You can't just take a 2D side-on diagram and paste it onto a photograph taken at some random angle and demand that they line up perfectly!  What kind of a bullshit claim is *THAT*?

If you understood the context of the video, you would know that the point was that convergence of these perspective lines don't exist in this model he is criticizing, which completely contradicts with what we actually see with the window shades example brought here.

but you can see that the stickman's eyeline matches the eyeline in the photo - and the sun gets closer to the horizon in the same way that the strips on the wall do.

The lines in that model never intersect, but that's exactly what they are doing here, approaching intersection which is easily visible in our reality. So, if this were the case, we could never perceive a steepening consistency of convergence paths, since perspective lines wouldn't angle towards a point.

Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.



Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?

That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.

What we see is that FAR from reaching the "horizon" at 6pm, the effect of perspective is shortening the *visual* distance between the consecutive sun positions...so although the sun is indeed lowering in the sky - it'll never reach it because it's moving smaller and smaller distances with each hour that passes.

The distances between become less distinguishable at farther distances and so the farther distances produce no such effect, relative to the distances to the point of convergence, the above frames sizes become more similar until they are indistinguishable differences from our standpoint. This point is therefore invalid.

Equally spaced pillars getting closer together as they get shorter.  The number of pillars needed before the height of the building is zero has to be infinite because every time you halve the height of the building, you double the number of columns you need

Which is incorrect and faulty misunderstanding of perspective, as I have explained.

This is WHY the FE sun can never set.

You failed to provide any justification for that proposition.

The problem is that he's guilty of PRECISELY the thing that he falsely accuses the original diagram of.  He's using a 2D representation fo the sun on a 3D photograph of a real world thing.

You simply can't do that.

Yes you can, it is for simplicity of the concept.

You can prove your point with a 2D diagram - or you can prove it with a 3D photographic visualization - but the instant you mix the two - you screwed up.

There isn't an inherent difference in terms of visual representations. So, I don't know what you are implying here.

Clearly the guy who made it DOESN'T understand the first thing about how perspective works.

Exactly what you showed, misunderstanding of perception.

So...RE-BUNKED!  (is that even a word?)

Not at all, you failed to debunk or successfully counter anything here and relied on false concepts.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors

« on: August 29, 2017, 09:14:42 PM »

This doesn't address the mass issue. We know the parameters needed for fusion and a tiny Sun would not meet them. Also, the article you linked does not say anything about the Sun's primary power source being external energy. Further, the data collected was from a satellite that orbits the Earth. lol, not sure too many FEers would consider that acceptable data. There is no physical aether. There have been experiments and none has ever been detected. Sun from a vacuum? Space is already a vacuum. Also, I don't consider hypotheses as anything more than interesting ideas. Until is backed up by experiment or observation, it is just an idea. Not saying they are all wrong, just saying I'm not putting them over established theory.

You can't assert that planarists think the sun is powered completely by inner nuclear fusion.

Abstract:
Furthermore, the Sun-like all stars- is not a self-sufficient entity, but it is externally powered by inducing current from high energy particles (cosmic rays).
Aether in what I'm describing is thought of a bit differently than the hypothetical luminiferous aether. Very fluid as well.
The hypothesis I mentioned claims the sun is hollow, with a vacuum.

The map you linked is pointless to look at as it is been reveled to be just an example of what the Earth might look like. I do find it interesting that the Sun and moon are always opposite one another on this map. How does that explain the fact that we can sometimes see the moon during the day? I know, just an example, but food for thought.

They aren't, it wasn't the point of the animation to map out the moon's orbit path.
It was to show you night and day which you clearly demonstrated you were lacking understanding of it.

Ok, if it hasnt't been observed, explored, or had it's effect deduced, what would lead you to conclude it exists? Why is it assumed to be ice?

If it hasn't been explored, we rely on what we do know and put it in a coherent framework (model) to explain our observations.

Ok, I'm going to avoid the particle physics end of this because I'm guessing neither of us are remotely qualified and simply ask, has this been observed? I, and the scientific community, would love to know how these streams of dark energy were detected. What about this magnetic field? Has it been detected?

It would still be debatable how we could go detect this dark energy or whatever is interacting with the magnetic field. For now, it's just model speculations.
If you got a magnetic compass, you can detect a magnetic field.

Absolutely, creative thinking is the core of most great discoveries. But eventually, you need to back it up with fact.

We have many observations, like acceleration in a vacuum and experiments that have been done, these ideas are able to be explained and backed.

Again, so many guesses at what it could be and no evidence. Are there any flat Earth scientists doing experiments? Electro-Magnetic levitation would have a detectable field. The whirlpool you describe is problematic due to the fact that the planets orbits are elliptical and Pluto's is tilted to the plane of the other planets. Also, the planets have moons which have their own orbits. Struggling to see how an imaginary whirlpool model gets us to the observed motions of the planets.

There are only scientists, what it was explained as by some other group of scientists has no bearing on whether the phenomena is explained in a distinct model. Does the sun and moon orbit above us, yes, by observation. Do they seem to be orbiting in predictable paths? Yes, by observation. Can we attempt to explain it? Yes, with observation.

You are correct. It doesn't need a literal center core. However, it does need flowing conductive fluids (molten metals) to generate an electrical current and the Coriolis force to organize this fluid into the north-south orientation we see.

Alright, now that that's understood...

The wiki is wrong. You say the problem is scattering due to moisture in the air. It makes one wonder how rain doesn't blind radar. Who needs stealth to defeat radar when all we needed was rain? Yes, radar does "see" rain, they increase the gain and filter out the rain returns to "see" through the rain. They have plenty of signal strength.

That's why the article said "signal noise ratio". Rain does affect radar, it can contribute to masking target echoes.

At the end of the day, look at all the different mechanisms that must be created to explain an ancient idea that was dismissed long ago. It is easier to say the Earth is not unique. Matter has mass. Mass induces gravitation. Once you accept gravity, you can see things fall into place.(pun intended)

If you want to try to be dismissive of it, that's your choice that you are free to make.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Summer solstice in southern vs. northern hemisphere

« on: August 29, 2017, 08:23:44 PM »

If you go north of the Arctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the summer solstice. This seems consistent with both round and flat earth models.

If you go south of the Antarctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the (southern) summer solstice. This seems inconsistent with a flat earth model. How can you see the sun 24/7 in the south, when the sun is so much farther away on any of the flat earth maps?

Because it's an ice continent with the south pole.
Either that, or ice wall proponents have to explain how the sun works that way.
The last resort is to say its not real and that the footage is faked.

Motivation for faking the multiple videos?  They don't make any money from it and it's not exactly a riveting story either.

Thank You,

CriticalThinker

Don't you think that many possible motivations could be though of?
It doesn't take that big of an imagination to come up with things.
And I said "last resort", so, if someone feels that they need to assume that, they come up with something.

I should have said last resort is to discard your model actually. 

Discarding evidence because it challenges your preconceived world view isn't debate. I'm here to have a thoughtful conversation and debate with people that actually want answers.

Trust the man that seeks the truth not the one that claims to know the truth.

ThankYou

CriticalThinker

I never attempted to discard any evidence of anything.

37

Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 08:17:47 PM »

Please be patient, the last time I touched advanced math was 20 years ago.
The equation above has the end result of g being a function of density. If the density is higher, g will increase.
In more layman terms, are you telling me that if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

It's an infinite plane, a neutron star wouldn't affect it's gravitational pull.

You can consider earth a point when calculating gravity, because it's a frickin' sphere. However, if you were to dig down, the gravity would decrease, as the earth above you pulls you "up". At the center, you would be de facto at 0 g.
Furthermore, we have slight variations of g due to different densities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly).
So no, there's nothing uniform in there.

Gravity would also recede as you dig down into an infinite plane as well.
Yes, I'm aware of gravitational anomalies, but it's still uniform as it involves the entire mass all across it, which was my point. On an infinite plane, the entire plane's density is what determines the pull, and it's gravitationally stable across because of the counteracting unit vectors. That's how the infinite plane is stable, the way it gravitates.

I thought Neil the mic dropper didn't know exactly what gravity was. How can you be so sure it's real? Could you place the facts here and a formula please.

This infinite plane model only relies on:
Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
F = mg

Basics as you see. Assuming it is real, we get the results I was talking about.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?

« on: August 29, 2017, 08:11:45 PM »

The "Davis Model" (and all others that appeal to General Relativity) are broken because they didn't actually read what Einstein wrote.   Gravity and Acceleration are only equivalent for a UNIFORM gravitational field and UNIFORM acceleration.

Gravitational pull and acceleration are equivalent, both are an inertial force. Uniformly across a mass is beside the point.

No "real world" gravitational field is uniform because it lessens in proportion to the square of the distance between bodies.   This is why we have tides.  In RET, the earth experiences a non-uniform gravitational field from the moon because the near-side and far-sides of the planet are appreciably different distances from it.  In FET, no such effect could happen.

Looks like you aren't dealing with the model but are rather trying to assert FE could never explain this.

So the "Davis Model" is a pile of poop - just like all the others.

You didn't even make an objection to the model.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 29, 2017, 08:01:56 PM »

Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.

I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that

What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?

Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.

40

Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 07:59:04 PM »

Please be patient, the last time I touched advanced math was 20 years ago.
The equation above has the end result of g being a function of density. If the density is higher, g will increase.
In more layman terms, are you telling me that if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

It's an infinite plane, a neutron star wouldn't affect it's gravitational pull.

You can consider earth a point when calculating gravity, because it's a frickin' sphere. However, if you were to dig down, the gravity would decrease, as the earth above you pulls you "up". At the center, you would be de facto at 0 g.
Furthermore, we have slight variations of g due to different densities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly).
So no, there's nothing uniform in there.

Gravity would also recede as you dig down into an infinite plane as well.
Yes, I'm aware of gravitational anomalies, but it's still uniform as it involves the entire mass all across it, which was my point. On an infinite plane, the entire plane's density is what determines the pull, and it's gravitationally stable across because of the counteracting unit vectors. That's how the infinite plane is stable, the way it gravitates.