*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #100 on: September 27, 2016, 02:45:42 PM »
No, that is not true that a 3000x6000 mile right triangle always has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle. It also depends how you are looking at it.

The angles change depending on your perspective and how you look at them. You showed this change of angle yourself with the illustration you provided in the OP where the angle changed:



A 40 degree angle turned into a completely different angle.

Oh goodie, back to angles 101. That picture represents an angle between 3 objects seen from an outside perspective. The physical angle doesn't change. The angle as we see it can change depending on where we are relative to the triangle.

We don't live in a two dimensional world. We might be looking at the angle on the far right, but you want us to measure it like we're looking at it like the angle on the far left. That makes no sense at all. You need to do the math from its appearance in reality, not from a hypothetical side view universe. The hypothetical side view is missing a dimension and certain aspects of perspective.

Your position that all angles are absolute and do not ever change is ridiculous. In fact, the idea that all angles should be measured from a specific side in a universe with higher dimensions is entirely arbitrary and bias. The illustration shows it very clearly. The angle goes from 40 degrees, to 51 degrees, to 73 degrees, as well as changes its height, depending on where we look!

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #101 on: September 27, 2016, 04:27:03 PM »
No, that is not true that a 3000x6000 mile right triangle always has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle. It also depends how you are looking at it.

The angles change depending on your perspective and how you look at them. You showed this change of angle yourself with the illustration you provided in the OP where the angle changed:



A 40 degree angle turned into a completely different angle.

Oh goodie, back to angles 101. That picture represents an angle between 3 objects seen from an outside perspective. The physical angle doesn't change. The angle as we see it can change depending on where we are relative to the triangle.

We don't live in a two dimensional world. We might be looking at the angle on the far right, but you want us to measure it like we're looking at it like the angle on the far left. That makes no sense at all.

No, I did not say I want you to measure it like on the far left. Nor are we looking at it from the perspective of the far right. We are looking at it from a first person perspective, so I said to measure it from first person perspective, which is not portrayed in the above image. I gave a method for measuring it based on the FOV of the camera in a previous post. It just so happens that the angle measured from a first person perspective agrees with the angle on the far left.

(Edit: clarification)

Quote
You need to do the math from its appearance in reality, not from a hypothetical side view universe. The hypothetical side view is missing a dimension and certain aspects of perspective.

Your position that all angles are absolute and do not ever change is ridiculous. In fact, the idea that all angles should be measured from a specific side in a universe with higher dimensions is entirely arbitrary and bias. The illustration shows it very clearly. The angle goes from 40 degrees, to 51 degrees, to 73 degrees, as well as changes its height, depending on where we look!

Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say all angles are absolute and don't ever change. In fact, I was the one who originally made the claim that an angle can appear different depending on what angle we are viewing the angle from, even though the physical angle, as measured by a protractor resting up against the triangle, doesn't change.

First it was a side view in a "universe missing a dimension", now it's a "universe with higher dimensions"? And you call my argument arbitrary. Lol.

Look, you can make all the nonsensical, hypothetical arguments that you want. However, as you said, empirical evidence is king. I gave you a method for measuring the angle from a first person perspective. The simple fact is that this angle is equal to the angle measured in the side view diagram, which is equal to the angle measured by a protractor in reality, which is equal to the angle calculated by simple trigonometry. The math works, regardless of your misgivings about orthographic projections.

angle measured from a picture using FOV = side view angle = real angle measured by protractor = angle calculated by math.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 04:45:01 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #102 on: September 28, 2016, 05:56:02 AM »
We don't live in a two dimensional world. We might be looking at the angle on the far right, but you want us to measure it like we're looking at it like the angle on the far left. That makes no sense at all. You need to do the math from its appearance in reality, not from a hypothetical side view universe. The hypothetical side view is missing a dimension and certain aspects of perspective.

Hey, don't take this up with us: Tell it to Rowbotham.  Or do you not know the contents and illustrations of your own Bible?  You send us there often enough that the rest of us all know what's in it, maybe you should too.


While you're at it, you better tell Voliva about it too. 

Heck, tell it to YOUR OWN WIKI, for crying out loud!  This image is proudly displayed, with no scornful denunciation of "hypothetical side views" anywhere to be seen!
 
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

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #103 on: September 28, 2016, 06:26:38 AM »
We don't live in a two dimensional world. We might be looking at the angle on the far right, but you want us to measure it like we're looking at it like the angle on the far left. That makes no sense at all. You need to do the math from its appearance in reality, not from a hypothetical side view universe. The hypothetical side view is missing a dimension and certain aspects of perspective.

Hey, don't take this up with us: Tell it to Rowbotham.  Or do you not know the contents and illustrations of your own Bible?  You send us there often enough that the rest of us all know what's in it, maybe you should too.

<lots of side view diagrams from flat earthers>

Whoa whoa whoa, I call foul. Hypothetical side views are only disallowed if they support a round earth. If they support a flat earth, they are fine. Please learn the rules of this forum.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #104 on: September 28, 2016, 12:58:18 PM »
Whoa whoa whoa, I call foul. Hypothetical side views are only disallowed if they support a round earth. If they support a flat earth, they are fine. Please learn the rules of this forum.

That's true, and no better example than Tom Bishop himself, who provided the following "hypothetical side view" in HIS OWN POST in support of a troposcatter theory to explain how "satellite" TV works in a world without space flight. 



Seriously, Tom, you need to get your act together.
If hypothetical side views are of no value, you're not allowed to use them yourself!
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 Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #105 on: September 28, 2016, 01:24:34 PM »
Hey, don't take this up with us: Tell it to Rowbotham.  Or do you not know the contents and illustrations of your own Bible?  You send us there often enough that the rest of us all know what's in it, maybe you should too.

Except, of course, if you look at the material you would find that Rowbotham is measuring and comparing angles in the sky as they actually exist from the first person, not predicting where the bodies are or where they might go according to a particular type of math in the third person.

The angles Rowbotham measures are very empirical, taken from direct observation of the sun. The angles are measured directly, and therefore they are true. He does not begin his inquiry by assuming what the angles would be in an outside universe. He does exactly as I suggested; to begin inquiry from reality and to base any and all conclusions on what is experienced.

He uses a side view, but it is not "hypothetical" as I framed the mathematical construct in the OP as a "hypothetical side view universe". Rowbotham's approach to the subject is to begin by observing the angles of the sun directly and seek to understand how they interrelate with each other; not to base his approach on a fantasy. The measurements directly translate into reality, and therefore is a comparatively much more empirical approach to truth, regardless of debatable accuracy.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 01:36:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #106 on: September 28, 2016, 01:36:30 PM »
Hey, don't take this up with us: Tell it to Rowbotham.  Or do you not know the contents and illustrations of your own Bible?  You send us there often enough that the rest of us all know what's in it, maybe you should too.

Except, of course, if you look at the material you would find that Rowbotham is measuring and comparing angles in the sky as they actually exist from the first person, not predicting where the bodies are or where they might go according to a particular type of math in the third person.

The angles Rowbotham measures are very empirical, taken from direct observation of the sun. The angles are measured directly, and therefore they are true. He does not begin his inquiry by assuming what the angles would be in an outside universe. He does exactly as I suggested; to begin inquiry from reality and to base any and all conclusions on what is experienced.

He uses a side view, but it is not "hypothetical" as I framed the mathematical construct in the OP as a "hypothetical side view universe". The measurements directly translate into reality, and therefore is a comparatively much more empirical approach to truth, regardless of debatable accuracy.

Rowbotham's approach to the subject is to begin by observing the angles of the sun directly and seek to understand how they interrelate with each other; not to base his approach on a fantasy. I note that in the chapter Rowbotham declines to give exact values for the sun's height, primarily concluding that it must be close to the earth's surface on a Flat Earth.

The measurements that astronomers and surveyors make are also "very empirical", and taken from a first person perspective.  They also work from observation.  It is almost like your protests in this thread are nonsense. 

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #107 on: September 28, 2016, 01:54:26 PM »
The measurements that astronomers and surveyors make are also "very empirical", and taken from a first person perspective.  They also work from observation.  It is almost like your protests in this thread are nonsense.

The empirical measurements of astronomers isn't really being doubted in a lot of the Flat Earth material. It is being argued that the astronomers compute their distance of the sun based on a Round Earth. If you assume a Flat Earth, with a flat baseline, the sun becomes a lot closer to the earth's surface. It is an easy mistake to make when you have been brainwashed from birth into believing that you live on a ball.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #108 on: September 28, 2016, 02:54:08 PM »
The measurements that astronomers and surveyors make are also "very empirical", and taken from a first person perspective.  They also work from observation.  It is almost like your protests in this thread are nonsense.

The empirical measurements of astronomers isn't really being doubted in a lot of the Flat Earth material. It is being argued that the astronomers compute their distance of the sun based on a Round Earth. If you assume a Flat Earth, with a flat baseline, the sun becomes a lot closer to the earth's surface. It is an easy mistake to make when you have been brainwashed from birth into believing that you live on a ball.
But then starts all the other issues that flat earth can't explain, if the sun is as close to the surface as math would tell, assuming the earth is flat. We've been telling you that a gazillion times.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 11:29:10 PM by andruszkow »
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #109 on: September 28, 2016, 04:39:36 PM »
The empirical measurements of astronomers isn't really being doubted in a lot of the Flat Earth material.

FALSE.  Astronomers measure a zero degree angle to the sun at sunset, to which FE materials reply that the sun is at some non-zero elevation and propose an atmospheric / perspective effect to "explain" that the sun isn't actually located where it appears to be located.  If that doesn't count as "empirical measurement isn't really being doubted" then I don't know what would count.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 04:41:16 PM by Rounder »
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

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #110 on: September 28, 2016, 04:59:23 PM »
Hey, don't take this up with us: Tell it to Rowbotham.  Or do you not know the contents and illustrations of your own Bible?  You send us there often enough that the rest of us all know what's in it, maybe you should too.

Except, of course, if you look at the material you would find that Rowbotham is measuring and comparing angles in the sky as they actually exist from the first person, not predicting where the bodies are or where they might go according to a particular type of math in the third person.

Quoting directly from ENAG: Chapter V: The True Distance of the Sun.

Quote
The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction." The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees. Both lines are produced until they bisect or cross each other at the point S. Then, with a pair of compasses, measure the length of the base-line B, L, and see how many times the same length may be found in the line L, S, or B, S. It will be found to be



sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles. By the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles, as shown by dividing the base-line L, D, by the distance B, L. If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

Uh-oh Spaghetti-O.

He is doing the exact same thing that we have been doing here. The exact same thing you are so desperate to denounce.

1. Measure the altitude (angle) of the sun from a first person perspective.
2. Draw a side view diagram of the measured angles.
3. Measure the distances in the side view diagram. (Or just calculate them with math. Both will give the same answer.)

Sometimes we reverse the process, and go from distance to angle, instead of angle to distance. We can do it either way though. Both ways prove the absurdity of a 3000 mile high sun. (Or less than 700 miles, according to Rowbotham.)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #111 on: September 28, 2016, 08:21:54 PM »
But then starts all the other issues that flat earth can't explain, if the earth is as close to the surface as math would tell, assuming the earth is flat. We've been telling you that a gazillion times.

Please elaborate. I don't understand this reference.

The empirical measurements of astronomers isn't really being doubted in a lot of the Flat Earth material.

FALSE.  Astronomers measure a zero degree angle to the sun at sunset, to which FE materials reply that the sun is at some non-zero elevation and propose an atmospheric / perspective effect to "explain" that the sun isn't actually located where it appears to be located.  If that doesn't count as "empirical measurement isn't really being doubted" then I don't know what would count.

I don't believe the FE materials assert that the sun is at a non-zero elevation when the sun is appeared to be at a zero elevation. I think you are wrong on that count. Rowbotham describes the sun going to the eye level horizon.

Uh-oh Spaghetti-O.

He is doing the exact same thing that we have been doing here. The exact same thing you are so desperate to denounce.

1. Measure the altitude (angle) of the sun from a first person perspective.
2. Draw a side view diagram of the measured angles.
3. Measure the distances in the side view diagram. (Or just calculate them with math. Both will give the same answer.)

Sometimes we reverse the process, and go from distance to angle, instead of angle to distance. We can do it either way though. Both ways prove the absurdity of a 3000 mile high sun. (Or less than 700 miles, according to Rowbotham.)

We've already established that the angles in a side view are different than the angles that are observed. Recall this image where the angles changed when they were turned:



Remember that? The angles changed from 41 degrees, to 51 degrees, to 71 degrees, as well as changed in height. Then in the second image you provided  the angles stayed the same between orientations. How is it that the angles change in the first image, but not in the second? See below:



How is this possible? In the side view orientation the angles are 11 degrees, 14 degrees, and 20 degrees, and in the first person view the angles are 11 degrees, 14 degrees, and 20 degrees.

You obviously got it completely wrong, and are missing something, such as certain elements of perspective, when you translated the scene.

Rowbotham is taking the first person angles (which are not the same as the side view angles, remember) and illustrating those collected angles on paper, working solely with those values in a non-hypothetical side view. This is not the same as illustrating hypothetical side view angles from the start and forcing it into a half-thought-out first person view which fails on properly translating perspective.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 08:40:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #112 on: September 28, 2016, 09:20:45 PM »
Uh-oh Spaghetti-O.

He is doing the exact same thing that we have been doing here. The exact same thing you are so desperate to denounce.

1. Measure the altitude (angle) of the sun from a first person perspective.
2. Draw a side view diagram of the measured angles.
3. Measure the distances in the side view diagram. (Or just calculate them with math. Both will give the same answer.)

Sometimes we reverse the process, and go from distance to angle, instead of angle to distance. We can do it either way though. Both ways prove the absurdity of a 3000 mile high sun. (Or less than 700 miles, according to Rowbotham.)

We've already established that the angles in a side view are different than the angles that are observed. Recall this image where the angles changed when they were turned:



Remember that? The angles changed from 41 degrees, to 51 degrees, to 71 degrees, as well as changed in height. Then in the second image you provided  the angles stayed the same between orientations. How is it that the angles change in the first image, but not in the second? See below:



How is this possible? In the side view orientation the angles are 11 degrees, 14 degrees, and 20 degrees, and in the first person view the angles are 11 degrees, 14 degrees, and 20 degrees.

You obviously got it completely wrong, and are missing something, such as certain elements of perspective, when you translated the scene.

Goodness, you are super confused about this subject. The first person perspective of the angle is not even illustrated in the first image. In Rowbotham's example, the angle does not change between the first person perspective and the side view either.

Quote
Rowbotham is taking the first person angles (which are not the same as the side view angles, remember)

Except they ARE the same angle in Rowbotham's diagram. Read it and weep.

Quote
and illustrating those collected angles on paper, working solely with those values in a non-hypothetical side view.

BY DRAWING A SIDE VIEW DIAGRAM, WHICH HAS THE EXACT SAME ANGLES AS MEASURED FROM THE FIRST PERSON PERSPECTIVE. You literally JUST argued that the angles should be different in this same post. Did you not notice that the angles Rowbotham draws in his side view are the same angles he measured from the first person perspective?

Quote
This is not the same as illustrating hypothetical side view angles from the start and forcing it into a half-thought-out first person view. The angles Rowbotham collected and represented are, in fact, much more empirical, as they are more directly correlated to reality.

Normally, we have been starting with the hypothetical distances (according to the flat earth model), calculating the expected angle, and then comparing that with the measured angle. This is the reverse of what Rowbotham is doing, but we can just as easily do it in the same order as Rowbotham, if you think it will make a difference. Here you go:

Yesterday, the sun made an angle of 1 degree with the horizon just before sunset. This is the same type of measurable, first person perspective angle that Rowbotham starts out with. (It actually got even smaller than that, obviously, but we will start with 1 degree.) We will also assume that the sun is 3000 miles high, like in the flat earth model. From there, we can calculate the distance to the sun. We can draw a side view diagram like Rowbotham, or just use trigonometry. Both give the same answer.

3000 miles / tan(1 degree) = 172,000 miles.

So apparently, if the sun is indeed 3000 miles high, it should also be 172,000 miles away when it is only 1 degree from the horizon. This is WAAAAY bigger than the earth. Therefore, the sun probably isn't 3000 miles high. This is the EXACT same process that Rowbotham uses, in the EXACT same order.

By all means, continue arguing. It is quite entertaining to watch you desperately defend Rowbotham and denounce us at the same time, when we are using the EXACT same process. I can only imagine how uncomfortable the cognitive dissonance must be getting.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #113 on: September 28, 2016, 09:47:51 PM »
It's not the same process. You start off with a hypothesis, Rowbotham does not. Rowbotham starts off with reality. There is quite a big difference.

You have not shown why your two examples contradict each other. Are the angles the same when you turn the scene or not? Your examples are entirely contradictory.

Quote
Yesterday, the sun made an angle of 1 degree with the horizon just before sunset. This is the same type of measurable, first person perspective angle that Rowbotham starts out with. (It actually got even smaller than that, obviously, but we will start with 1 degree.) We will also assume that the sun is 3000 miles high, like in the flat earth model. From there, we can calculate the distance to the sun. We can draw a side view diagram like Rowbotham, or just use trigonometry. Both give the same answer.

3000 miles / tan(1 degree) = 172,000 miles.

So apparently, if the sun is indeed 3000 miles high, it should also be 172,000 miles away when it is only 1 degree from the horizon. This is WAAAAY bigger than the earth. Therefore, the sun probably isn't 3000 miles high. This is the EXACT same process that Rowbotham uses, in the EXACT same order.

That math is assuming that numbers near 0 approach infinity. But we know that things can touch the horizon. That makes your hypothesis suspect.

The ancient greeks have never observed an example of things traveling infinite distances. That assumption of the math is entirely without merit.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #114 on: September 28, 2016, 10:20:15 PM »
It's not the same process. You start off with a hypothesis, Rowbotham does not. Rowbotham starts off with reality. There is quite a big difference.

Rowbotham is starting off with a hypothesis as well: that the earth is flat. He is trying to calculate the height and distance of the sun assuming that the earth is flat.

I am starting off with almost the same hypothesis: that the earth is flat, and that the height of the sun is 3000 miles high. The calculations are the same though. The math is the same. The diagram is the same. The process is the same.

Quote
You have not shown why your two examples contradict each other. Are the angles the same when you turn the scene or not? Your examples are entirely contradictory.

*Sigh*

The point of the first diagram is to point out how angles change when measured by a protractor that is not parallel to the plane of the angle. In each view, imagine a protractor painted on your screen. In the "side view", the protractor is parallel to the plane of the angle, therefore the angle it measures is correct (40 degrees). In the middle and right views, the protractor on the screen is no longer parallel to the plane of the angle. Therefore, the angles measured by the protractor will be incorrect (51 degrees, 73 degrees). In a first person perspective, the protractor would be completely perpendicular to the plane of the angle. There is no way to measure the angle with a protractor that is perpendicular to the plane of the angle. Therefore, we need a DIFFERENT way to measure this angle from a first person perspective. I gave one possible way to measure that angle from a photo (bottom of the second image). Other possible ways include using a theodolite, sextant, stick and shadow, etc... All of these methods will yield an angle that is the same as the side view angle.

Once again, please notice that the angles measured by Rowbotham from a first person perspective are the same angles as those in his side view diagram.

Quote
Quote
Yesterday, the sun made an angle of 1 degree with the horizon just before sunset. This is the same type of measurable, first person perspective angle that Rowbotham starts out with. (It actually got even smaller than that, obviously, but we will start with 1 degree.) We will also assume that the sun is 3000 miles high, like in the flat earth model. From there, we can calculate the distance to the sun. We can draw a side view diagram like Rowbotham, or just use trigonometry. Both give the same answer.

3000 miles / tan(1 degree) = 172,000 miles.

So apparently, if the sun is indeed 3000 miles high, it should also be 172,000 miles away when it is only 1 degree from the horizon. This is WAAAAY bigger than the earth. Therefore, the sun probably isn't 3000 miles high. This is the EXACT same process that Rowbotham uses, in the EXACT same order.

That math is assuming that numbers near 0 approach infinity. But we know that things can touch the horizon. That makes your hypothesis suspect.

The ancient greeks have never observed an example of things traveling infinite distances. That assumption of the math is entirely without merit.

Did you already forget that this is the exact same math that Rowbotham uses? That was quick. For the millionth time, the math works for all testable distances, despite your abysmal and naive understanding of infinity and infinitesimals.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 10:21:59 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #115 on: September 28, 2016, 10:33:21 PM »
The measurements that astronomers and surveyors make are also "very empirical", and taken from a first person perspective.  They also work from observation.  It is almost like your protests in this thread are nonsense.

The empirical measurements of astronomers isn't really being doubted in a lot of the Flat Earth material. It is being argued that the astronomers compute their distance of the sun based on a Round Earth. If you assume a Flat Earth, with a flat baseline, the sun becomes a lot closer to the earth's surface. It is an easy mistake to make when you have been brainwashed from birth into believing that you live on a ball.
But then starts all the other issues that flat earth can't explain, if the earth is as close to the surface as math would tell, assuming the earth is flat. We've been telling you that a gazillion times.
This, Tom.

And the issues that arises are the question about the size of the sun and so on and so forth.

This is an endless circle of denial and repetition. You don't get it, because you don't want to. You have private life issues that makes you refute the obvious.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #116 on: September 28, 2016, 10:38:20 PM »
The measurements that astronomers and surveyors make are also "very empirical", and taken from a first person perspective.  They also work from observation.  It is almost like your protests in this thread are nonsense.

The empirical measurements of astronomers isn't really being doubted in a lot of the Flat Earth material. It is being argued that the astronomers compute their distance of the sun based on a Round Earth. If you assume a Flat Earth, with a flat baseline, the sun becomes a lot closer to the earth's surface. It is an easy mistake to make when you have been brainwashed from birth into believing that you live on a ball.
But then starts all the other issues that flat earth can't explain, if the earth is as close to the surface as math would tell, assuming the earth is flat. We've been telling you that a gazillion times.

Did you mean if the sun is as close to the surface as math would tell? I honestly don't understand what you mean either.

Edit:
This is an endless circle of denial and repetition. You don't get it, because you don't want to. You have private life issues that makes you refute the obvious.

But yeah, the endless repetition of arguments that have already been refuted, the contradictions, the denial of the obvious. All because he really, really, reeaaaally wants to believe the earth is flat. It's like the quintessential case study of denial.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 10:44:17 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #117 on: September 28, 2016, 10:58:00 PM »
The empirical measurements of astronomers isn't really being doubted in a lot of the Flat Earth material. It is being argued that the astronomers compute their distance of the sun based on a Round Earth. If you assume a Flat Earth, with a flat baseline, the sun becomes a lot closer to the earth's surface.

It is an easy mistake to make when you have been brainwashed from birth into believing that you live on a ball.

The last portion, in particular, is what I commented on.

If Flat Earth material does not doubt the empirical measurements, but call it an "easy mistake to make when you have been brainwashed", you just introduce the problems flat earth material can't solve, if we've been brought up "knowing" the earth is flat. For instance, the Sun staying the same size throughout the day, hence my comment about the endless circle of repitition and denial.

Quite frankly, I get offended when a flat earth proponent of Tom's caliber use the words "easy mistake" and "brainwashed" in one sentence that is ment to imply that so-called "round earthers" are wrong. On some level, I have to accept the fact that these authorities will have an influence in future knowledge sharing and debates that my kids take part in. And yes, adult and seemingly intelligent people are authorities in the eyes of a kid.

It's scary.

Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #118 on: September 28, 2016, 11:15:37 PM »
If Flat Earth material does not doubt the empirical measurements, but call it an "easy mistake to make when you have been brainwashed", you just introduce the problems flat earth material can't solve, if we've been brought up "knowing" the earth is flat. For instance, the Sun staying the same size throughout the day, hence my comment about the endless circle of repitition and denial.

Yes, he has no explanation for the sun staying the same size (as has been thoroughly demonstrated in other threads). Yes, it is related to the topic of perspective. But let's try to keep this thread as narrowly focused as possible. We could bring the size of the sun into it, but we don't really need to, and it will probably just confuse him more if we do.

And I still don't understand what you mean by "if the earth is as close to the surface as math would tell".

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #119 on: September 28, 2016, 11:21:14 PM »
And I still don't understand what you mean by "if the earth is as close to the surface as math would tell".

I was refering to the following from Tom's comment:

Quote
If you assume a Flat Earth, with a flat baseline, the sun becomes a lot closer to the earth's surface.

If that statement is utilizing math, and we assume the math is correct, nothing in the flat earth material explains the aforementioned problems, like the size of the Sun. Alas, the flat earth math is wrong. Not understood, at best.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.