*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #80 on: September 25, 2016, 07:52:00 AM »
If I am following this right Tom is saying the math is wrong because if what ever you are viewing like railroad and do not have enough resolution tracks can appear to touch in the distance.

I do not know what to say if this is his reasoning.

Tom what I was saying about celestial navigation is the entire method is based on angles.  The sextant is used to measure the apparent angle of a star above the horizon. Then everything that follows is using math to predict where on Earth at that time that star will be viewed at that angle. 

My reasoning is if you are claiming the math fails after a certain distance.  Like predicting what angle the Sun should be above the horizon.  On a flat earth with a Sun 3k miles high the math says it should never appear to touch the horizon, let alone appear to go below it.

Offline Nostra

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #81 on: September 25, 2016, 09:48:58 AM »
When the sun is overhead at noontime the sun is at 90 degrees and at sunset the sun is at 0 degrees. There are your angles for the sun. It's quite simple.

Yes we agree on that, this is a fact! On flat earth to do so, the sun should seems to accelerate up to noon and decelerate afterwards. Which is not the case as any observer could verify. I prove it on the other thread.
So please prove it otherwise.
Proud to be the 1 other!

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #82 on: September 25, 2016, 02:11:18 PM »
You seem to have some difficulty here. I obviously agreed with you.

i seem to be having difficulty?  it took you three posts to admit that the woman in the photo "maybe" isn't as tall as the tower of pisa.

so, just to be clear, you agree that this woman only appears as tall as the tower because of the orientation of the camera, yes?  why do you suppose it is that she can appear to be larger than the tower and yet physically not be taller than the tower?  what is the cause of the disparity?

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #83 on: September 25, 2016, 07:22:57 PM »
Tom, you are using two arguments to justify your conclusion. Argument 1 will be labelled in blue, argument 2 will be in red.

(1)Two lines angled towards each other must touch, that is logically sound, and (2)the lines are seen to touch, which places the concept in reality as well.
...
(2)If they appear to touch, they touch, okay? The human eye can see a single photon in a dark room. That is very good resolution. If the tracks are appearing to merge at a point then it means that black photons are arriving side by side without any gap. There is no "almost" touching. The gap is gone.

Argument 1, by itself, was already shown to be bad logic by my "crossover" example. You are using argument 2 to justify argument 1, which is fine, but that means if there is a problem with argument 2, both arguments have to be tossed out.

And there most certainly is a problem argument 2. It assumes we have perfect vision. That is possibly the dumbest assumption I have ever seen anyone make on this website, which is impressive considering the trolls that come by. Do you really think your eyes are good enough to see any arbitrarily small detail? Can you see a hair from 100 meters away? 1000 meters? 10000000 meters? Lol.

Quote
The correct way to determine the angle of the sun is to make our determinations based on reality, not theoretical mathematics which lack a dimension. Take a protractor. When the sun is overhead at noontime the sun is at 90 degrees and at sunset the sun is at 0 degrees. There are your angles for the sun. It's quite simple.

Good grief, are you purposely misunderstanding the point of the question?

Yes, the sun is at 0 degrees at sunset and 90 degrees when directly overhead. Thanks for stating the obvious. The point is to be able to figure out our distance from the sun based on the sun's height and angle. We can do this easily using trigonometry, or an orthographic diagram. And the angles/distances that we calculate agree with reality for any testable distance. Your only argument is that the math doesn't work (which it does, for testable distances) or that it doesn't work for long distances that are conveniently too long to test.

So, if the math doesn't work, what is the correct way to determine the distance of the sun based on its angle and height? Or, alternatively, what is the correct way to determine its angle based on its distance and height? The person in the video clearly attempts to do this with his orthographic diagram overlayed with perspective lines. However, his lines seemed arbitrary and his reasoning was vague. So, what is the correct way to do it? Show us. Use these numbers:

Object A is 500 meters away from you on the ground. Object B is 50 meters directly over object A. What is the angle between object A and B from your perspective?

Rama Set

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #84 on: September 25, 2016, 10:04:06 PM »
You should probably address Tom's assertion, in reply 79, that since we do not see perspective lines crossover in reality, it is illogical to assume they should. Otherwise he will just behave as if he has the higher ground.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #85 on: September 25, 2016, 11:32:35 PM »
You should probably address Tom's assertion, in reply 79, that since we do not see perspective lines crossover in reality, it is illogical to assume they should. Otherwise he will just behave as if he has the higher ground.

Since there is a decent chance he will miss the point, I will clarify:

"Two lines angled towards each other must touch" is no more logical than "two lines angled towards each other must cross". I think both are illogical. Therefore, he is only left with the argument "the lines are seen to touch, therefore they touch", which assumes his eyes are perfect. Which is just silly.

Offline Nostra

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #86 on: September 26, 2016, 05:22:20 AM »
You should probably address Tom's assertion, in reply 79, that since we do not see perspective lines crossover in reality, it is illogical to assume they should. Otherwise he will just behave as if he has the higher ground.

Since there is a decent chance he will miss the point, I will clarify:

"Two lines angled towards each other must touch" is no more logical than "two lines angled towards each other must cross". I think both are illogical. Therefore, he is only left with the argument "the lines are seen to touch, therefore they touch", which assumes his eyes are perfect. Which is just silly.

I think Tom is not aware of asymptote!
Proud to be the 1 other!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #87 on: September 26, 2016, 03:56:50 PM »
You should probably address Tom's assertion, in reply 79, that since we do not see perspective lines crossover in reality, it is illogical to assume they should. Otherwise he will just behave as if he has the higher ground.

Since there is a decent chance he will miss the point, I will clarify:

"Two lines angled towards each other must touch" is no more logical than "two lines angled towards each other must cross". I think both are illogical. Therefore, he is only left with the argument "the lines are seen to touch, therefore they touch", which assumes his eyes are perfect. Which is just silly.

Assuming the existence of a hidden pocket of infinite distance in the railroad tracks, undetectable to man and machine, is even sillier.

We have more evidence that they touch than they do not. Empirically, they touch. It is only by an interpretation of ancient mathematics, that they do not.

Rama Set

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #88 on: September 26, 2016, 04:02:28 PM »
Empirically they touch?  Wow. That's like saying, "empirically viruses don't exist because that's what I observe with the naked eye. M

Tom, simple experiment to falsify your claim: find a point where two rails appear to converge. Have a friend stay there. You walk alongside the rails with radio contact with your friend until he sees you converge with the rails as well. Check to see if the rails have converged in reality.

Report back with your findings please.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #89 on: September 26, 2016, 04:42:54 PM »
Empirically they touch?  Wow. That's like saying, "empirically viruses don't exist because that's what I observe with the naked eye.

That was true, until someone found empirical evidence for viruses.

Quote
Tom, simple experiment to falsify your claim: find a point where two rails appear to converge. Have a friend stay there. You walk alongside the rails with radio contact with your friend until he sees you converge with the rails as well. Check to see if the rails have converged in reality.

The friend has a different perspective than I do. Things will be differently for him. His experience of being 5 feet away from the tracks has nothing to do with the touching perspective lines I see.

Rama Set

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #90 on: September 26, 2016, 05:03:14 PM »
Empirically they touch?  Wow. That's like saying, "empirically viruses don't exist because that's what I observe with the naked eye.

That was true, until someone found empirical evidence for viruses.

Exactly.

Quote
Quote
Tom, simple experiment to falsify your claim: find a point where two rails appear to converge. Have a friend stay there. You walk alongside the rails with radio contact with your friend until he sees you converge with the rails as well. Check to see if the rails have converged in reality.

The friend has a different perspective than I do. Things will be differently for him. His experience of being 5 feet away from the tracks has nothing to do with the touching perspective lines I see.

You could simply apply this idea to the case of viruses. Someone looking under magnification has a different perspective and has nothing to do with invisible viruses I don't see.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #91 on: September 26, 2016, 06:38:57 PM »
Enough with the stupid railway lines and 20 feet high walls that converge due to perspective over long distances. Yes, that is a fact due to the limitations of the human eyes! We are talking about the FE sun 3000 miles above a flat earth. If there were lines parallel to the earth at 1000, 2000 and 3000 miles high, they would converge very slowly, far beyond any vanishing point we could see and far beyond 12000 miles. The sun would always be above the horizon on a flat earth. Don't use small scale perspective models to try and explain large scale real life logic and mathematics.
... and Tom, there is a big difference between queue and cue, which you don't seem to understand (que and queues used instead of cue and cues in this thread)

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #92 on: September 26, 2016, 07:23:13 PM »
Enough with the stupid railway lines and 20 feet high walls that converge due to perspective over long distances. Yes, that is a fact due to the limitations of the human eyes! We are talking about the FE sun 3000 miles above a flat earth. If there were lines parallel to the earth at 1000, 2000 and 3000 miles high, they would converge very slowly, far beyond any vanishing point we could see and far beyond 12000 miles. The sun would always be above the horizon on a flat earth.

This is all very true, but...

Quote
Don't use small scale perspective models to try and explain large scale real life logic and mathematics.

I disagree with this. The math scales up quite nicely. There is no reason to think it doesn't. His entire argument rests on "maybe the math suddenly stops working at long distances for no apparent reason".

The simple fact is that congruent triangles have the same angles. A 3000x6000 mile right triangle has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle and a 3x6 mm right triangle. This is the fact that Tom is desperately trying not to admit. (Edit: The ratio of the sides is what matters, not the absolute length of the sides.)
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 07:26:26 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2016, 07:43:05 PM »
I agree with the above completely. Small or large makes no difference to the calculations. It is just that using small scale limits lots of people's conception on a grand scale.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #94 on: September 26, 2016, 07:44:31 PM »
"Two lines angled towards each other must touch" is no more logical than "two lines angled towards each other must cross". I think both are illogical. Therefore, he is only left with the argument "the lines are seen to touch, therefore they touch", which assumes his eyes are perfect. Which is just silly.
Assuming the existence of a hidden pocket of infinite distance in the railroad tracks, undetectable to man and machine, is even sillier.

There is no hidden pocket of infinite distance. I have made no such assumptions. Your understanding of infinity and basic geometry is childish at best, intentionally delusional at worst. I won't even bother countering this argument. Read below.

Empirically they touch?  Wow. That's like saying, "empirically viruses don't exist because that's what I observe with the naked eye.

That was true, until someone found empirical evidence for viruses.

Oh good, I am glad that is cleared up.

Now let's take a step back for a moment, since you are clearly desperate to misinterpret any argument having to do with infinity. What is the purpose of your "hidden infinity" argument? The purpose is to cast doubt on the basic mathematics of perspective. However, we have empirical evidence that the math does work, at least at any testable distance. Therefore, your "hidden infinity" argument is wrong. Sorry. We can quibble about the subtleties of infinity all we want, but at the end of the day, you are the one who insists empirical evidence trumps all else.

We have empirical evidence for viruses, and we have empirical evidence that the math works. "But I can't see the virus! But I can't see the separation of the train tracks!" is no longer a valid argument.

Therefore, you are left only with your argument that "maybe the math suddenly stops working at large distances". We have already establish that you have no evidence for this either.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #95 on: September 26, 2016, 07:53:17 PM »
I agree with the above completely. Small or large makes no difference to the calculations. It is just that using small scale limits lots of people's conception on a grand scale.

It's not the scale that matters. It's the fact that he is trying to compare a triangle with side ratio of 3000:1 to a triangle with a side ratio of 2:1.

Tom Bishop's logic: "Two objects separated by a 0.01 degree angle appear to be touching, therefore the sun should appear to touch the horizon, even though they are separated by a 20 degree angle!" Derp.

Edit: Ok, I get what you are saying. Using a large scale makes it difficult to imagine/conceptualize. Yep.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 08:07:47 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #96 on: September 26, 2016, 11:37:12 PM »
You could simply apply this idea to the case of viruses. Someone looking under magnification has a different perspective and has nothing to do with invisible viruses I don't see.

The person looking at the virus under magnification has a different perspective, and will see different things. It's not that the virus doesn't exist at other scales, it's that we are not in a perspective to see it.

I disagree with this. The math scales up quite nicely. There is no reason to think it doesn't. His entire argument rests on "maybe the math suddenly stops working at long distances for no apparent reason".

The simple fact is that congruent triangles have the same angles. A 3000x6000 mile right triangle has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle and a 3x6 mm right triangle. This is the fact that Tom is desperately trying not to admit. (Edit: The ratio of the sides is what matters, not the absolute length of the sides.)

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.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 11:42:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #97 on: September 27, 2016, 12:40:25 AM »
You could simply apply this idea to the case of viruses. Someone looking under magnification has a different perspective and has nothing to do with invisible viruses I don't see.

The person looking at the virus under magnification has a different perspective, and will see different things. It's not that the virus doesn't exist at other scales, it's that we are not in a perspective to see it.

Similarly, it is not that the perspective lines are touching, it is that you are in the wrong perspective to see it.

Quote
I disagree with this. The math scales up quite nicely. There is no reason to think it doesn't. His entire argument rests on "maybe the math suddenly stops working at long distances for no apparent reason".

The simple fact is that congruent triangles have the same angles. A 3000x6000 mile right triangle has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle and a 3x6 mm right triangle. This is the fact that Tom is desperately trying not to admit. (Edit: The ratio of the sides is what matters, not the absolute length of the sides.)

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.

The angles change but congruent triangles being viewed in the same projection will have identical angles.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #98 on: September 27, 2016, 12:58:45 AM »
You could simply apply this idea to the case of viruses. Someone looking under magnification has a different perspective and has nothing to do with invisible viruses I don't see.

The person looking at the virus under magnification has a different perspective, and will see different things. It's not that the virus doesn't exist at other scales, it's that we are not in a perspective to see it.

I disagree with this. The math scales up quite nicely. There is no reason to think it doesn't. His entire argument rests on "maybe the math suddenly stops working at long distances for no apparent reason".

The simple fact is that congruent triangles have the same angles. A 3000x6000 mile right triangle has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle and a 3x6 mm right triangle. This is the fact that Tom is desperately trying not to admit. (Edit: The ratio of the sides is what matters, not the absolute length of the sides.)

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.

When we are talking about the angle between the sun and the horizon, what we actually mean is the angle between the sun, our eyes, and the horizon. From a first person perspective, we can't actually see an angle like we do in the above picture, since we are physically located at the corner of the triangle. HOWEVER, we can measure the angle based on their apparent distance from each other in our vision. For example, if we have 180 degree vision, and the distance between two objects takes up half our vision, then there is a 90 degree angle between the two objects. Someone looking at us and the objects from the side would be able to measure that angle as 90 degrees with a protractor. This is easier to calculate through a camera, since a camera has a much more well defined field of view.

Once we know the angle based on the above method, we can calculate distances.

All of this is easily testable with a camera, several objects, and a tape measure.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #99 on: September 27, 2016, 01:05:58 AM »
You could simply apply this idea to the case of viruses. Someone looking under magnification has a different perspective and has nothing to do with invisible viruses I don't see.

The person looking at the virus under magnification has a different perspective, and will see different things. It's not that the virus doesn't exist at other scales, it's that we are not in a perspective to see it.

Similarly, it is not that the perspective lines are touching, it is that you are in the wrong perspective to see it.

I think you have gone off track a bit with this analogy.

The virus does not have zero width.
Similarly, the math predicts a non-zero width between the train tracks.

However, the width of a virus is too small to see.
Similarly, the distance between the train tracks is too small to see. Because our eyes aren't perfect. Obviously.