The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: flashadam on June 10, 2023, 08:46:33 PM
-
Hello!
I am writing a paper on Flat Earth for a research class and I was wondering if anyone would want to tell me about themselves? It's a very broad question, I'm just curious about how you happened upon the FES, what your interests are, etc etc. Really, anything and everything you want to share is much appreciated!
Additionally, I can ask questions if you want to prompt answers, I think just talking unfettered about yourself is sometimes overwhelming so let me know if I can ask anything to help you along your way.
Thank you!
-
Also any beliefs or theories you have, whether related to FE or not, would be appreciated! In my paper, I can also exclude names and just refer to you as your username or even just "anonymous." It's not a paper that will be published anywhere, just something for a class that I am taking.
-
You seem confused about the subject. This is what FE is about:
A or B?
(https://i.imgur.com/DtIZXUO.png)
If you say B, you are a reality denier.
-
Hi, Im here because the Bible supports a flat earth geocentric model, not a globe earth heliocentric model. There is nowhere in the Bible that says the earth is spinning around real fast nor does it say the earth revolves around the sun, in fact its just the opposite. Many verses say the sun moves around the earth. Many verses in the Bible to back that up. Also if you search flat earth in youtube, the first videos that come up are ones that oppose the notion of flat earth with rather shady proof and the videos that support it are totally throttled back, you got to really dig deep for them, many have been removed. But if you look up aliens or bigfoot,many videos come up supporting these notions. Many videos showing NASA is lying as well. Its just all too surreal. The world is run by satan and he does not want the truth out. THE EARTH IS FLAT.
-
You seem confused about the subject. This is what FE is about:
A or B?
(https://i.imgur.com/DtIZXUO.png)
If you say B, you are a reality denier.
I seems you're relying on the assumption that water in a relatively small container, such as a 1 metre long hog trough is flat. And by flat, I mean 100% flat. If that were true, there would never be any curvature no matter how far out you extended the trough, thereby staying flat as far as you can go and proving that the earth is flat. But, that's a false premise.
The earths circumference is 40,000 kms, which is 40,000,000 m. Therefore, a 1 metre trough would have to have 360 degrees / 40,000,000 metres = .000009 degrees of curvature to it from end to end. Can you see or measure .000009 degrees? Nope. Looks as flat as flat can be, which feeds the false premise on which you base your entire point.
-
You seem confused about the subject. This is what FE is about:
A or B?
(https://i.imgur.com/DtIZXUO.png)
If you say B, you are a reality denier.
Indeed, but I doubt anyone IS claiming B. "Level" means a structure perpendicular to the force of gravity at that point so on a globe earth (the earth we clearly are on) such s structure must follow the curve of the earth and hence will not be straight. Over short distances (like you house) this can not be observed but over miles (as your diagram depicts) you certainly can do so.
-
I doubt anyone IS claiming B. "Level" means a structure perpendicular to the force of gravity at that point so on a globe earth (the earth we clearly are on) such s structure must follow the curve of the earth and hence will not be straight. Over short distances (like you house) this can not be observed but over miles (as your diagram depicts) you certainly can do so.
Pathetic.
You can see that every hypothetical perfectly square block would be attached parallel to each other. So, only the first one uses gravity as a reference. That would make the structure STRAIGHT & LEVEL, as you can see in the diagram. TRUE level - not the modern definition of level that the globe cult invented.
Also, I'm talking about a tangible experiment, not just an observation which is what the globe proponents have been doing for millennia while not understanding their observations.
Let's see what lies, excuses and squirming come next...
-
I doubt anyone IS claiming B. "Level" means a structure perpendicular to the force of gravity at that point so on a globe earth (the earth we clearly are on) such s structure must follow the curve of the earth and hence will not be straight. Over short distances (like you house) this can not be observed but over miles (as your diagram depicts) you certainly can do so.
Pathetic.
You can see that every hypothetical perfectly square block would be attached parallel to each other. So, only the first one uses gravity as a reference. That would make the structure STRAIGHT & LEVEL, as you can see in the diagram. TRUE level - not the modern definition of level that the globe cult invented.
I assumed that by "level" you meant that a spirit level placed anywhere on the squares would show the bubble in dead center. In your diagram that would be the case at the left hand edge, but not further to the right. For miles long structures they can not be both straight and level (as observed by humans with devices like spirit levels). Perhaps you should find a highway engineer to chat with.
-
If you say B, you are a reality denier.
B has been observed.
-
If you say B, you are a reality denier.
B has been observed.
Only if "level" is required only at the far left and not for the entire length of the straight gray slab.
-
I doubt anyone IS claiming B. "Level" means a structure perpendicular to the force of gravity at that point so on a globe earth (the earth we clearly are on) such s structure must follow the curve of the earth and hence will not be straight. Over short distances (like you house) this can not be observed but over miles (as your diagram depicts) you certainly can do so.
Pathetic.
You can see that every hypothetical perfectly square block would be attached parallel to each other. So, only the first one uses gravity as a reference. That would make the structure STRAIGHT & LEVEL, as you can see in the diagram. TRUE level - not the modern definition of level that the globe cult invented.
I assumed that by "level" you meant that a spirit level placed anywhere on the squares would show the bubble in dead center. In your diagram that would be the case at the left hand edge, but not further to the right. For miles long structures they can not be both straight and level (as observed by humans with devices like spirit levels). Perhaps you should find a highway engineer to chat with.
It would because we live on a flat Earth and not a globe, and level means perfectly straight/horizontal - aka. lakes and oceans do not curve.
You doubt it? Go tell NASA or any gov. institution to do the experiment. I would cost maybe $1 or $2 million - peanuts for NASA or gov., and they can easily turn it into a for-profit tourist attraction because we need something permanent and not just "trust us, we did it and the water does curve".
To this day, the globe cult you belong to has not done this experiment and refuses to even mention it. Because it's not a globe.
-
You can see that every hypothetical perfectly square block would be attached parallel to each other. So, only the first one uses gravity as a reference. That would make the structure STRAIGHT & LEVEL, as you can see in the diagram. TRUE level - not the modern definition of level that the globe cult invented.
The modern definition of level uses gravity as a reference. That's why level isn't necessarily straight over long distances.
6a: a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
-
To this day, the globe cult you belong to has not done this experiment and refuses to even mention it. Because it's not a globe.
What experiment would that be?
-
You can see that every hypothetical perfectly square block would be attached parallel to each other. So, only the first one uses gravity as a reference. That would make the structure STRAIGHT & LEVEL, as you can see in the diagram. TRUE level - not the modern definition of level that the globe cult invented.
The modern definition of level uses gravity as a reference. That's why level isn't necessarily straight over long distances.
6a: a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
Well, the pus inside your troll zits might be curved, but the surface of still water certainly is not.
-
Well, the pus inside your troll zits might be curved, but the surface of still water certainly is not.
Just out of curiosity, do you have anything of substance to offer to the discussion or is your debate strategy limited to false premises, incredulity and mockery?
You seem confused about the subject. This is what FE is about:
A or B?
(https://i.imgur.com/DtIZXUO.png)
If you say B, you are a reality denier.
If you propose B, then you don't understand RET. If your water level in B is curved, then the level structure must be curved as well. Level is not a meaningful test of round vs. flat, straightness is.
-
To this day, the globe cult you belong to has not done this experiment and refuses to even mention it. Because it's not a globe.
Not exactly clear what experiment you are proposing but large scale structures take account of the earth's curve in a way which can be measured
https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/structures.html
And this experiment shows a building increasingly disappearing with increasing distance. What's it sinking behind if it's not the earth's curve?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk
-
"No need to prove there is curvature because we have cherrypicked observations and claims of curvature. That is good enough for us." - Said every globe defender ever.
It really is some tribal groupthink nonsense.
-
"No need to prove there is curvature because we have cherrypicked observations and claims of curvature. That is good enough for us." - Said every globe defender ever.
It really is some tribal groupthink nonsense.
It is neither groupthink nor cherry picked observation. They are observations that you can make yourself, if you dare.
-
Honestly, you should be banned for saying it's not cherrypicked. IMO.
Refraction + perspective = curve? Funny how globe believers always want to take it there because they have no experiments. It's beyond pathetic at this point. So maybe you should retire instead - being a globe defender can't be good for your mental health...
We already know that it's flat (even through observations we know that it's flat), there's really no need for you to keep posting and roleplaying the anonymous globe defender.
-
Refraction + perspective = curve?
I don't know if you're talking about the Turning Torso video but
1) Refraction over water typically bends light in such a way that you can see more of an object than you would expect if we didn't have an atmosphere.
2) Perspective makes things smaller, it doesn't explain half a building being hidden by the curve of the earth - if you dispute that's what's hiding the building then what is? I've explained in '1' why it isn't refraction.
We already know that it's flat (even through observations we know that it's flat)
You keep saying that, but when challenged you never present any observations apart from highly cherry picked high altitude pictures in another thread, one of which shows the horizon bending upwards which clearly indicates some lens distortion.
-
"hidden by the curve of the earth" (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png) (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
With no distance change:
(https://i.imgur.com/zXugcA0.jpg)
Keep insisting on this garbage because you got nothing else. GO.
2) Perspective makes things smaller, it doesn't explain half a building being hidden by the curve of the earth - if you dispute that's what's hiding the building then what is? I've explained in '1' why it isn't refraction.
It doesn't just make things smaller. Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.
-
Yes, refraction can vary. Those photos were clearly taken in very different atmospheric conditions.
The Turning Torso observations were taken in the same weather conditions, the only difference was the distance. Where's the rest of the building? :)
And a point I note you ignored is that refraction generally allows us to see MORE of a distant object, not less.
Ah, I see you've made a second reply - you can just edit your posts, dude.
I was simplifying a bit with perspective, but one thing perspective absolutely can't do is make things sink below the horizon. Things have to sink behind something. If it's not the curve of the earth then what is it?
-
Yes, refraction can vary. Those photos were clearly taken in very different atmospheric conditions.
The Turning Torso observations were taken in the same weather conditions, the only difference was the distance. Where's the rest of the building? :)
And a point I note you ignored is that refraction generally allows us to see MORE of a distant object, not less.
Ah, I see you've made a second reply - you can just edit your posts, dude.
I was simplifying a bit with perspective, but one thing perspective absolutely can't do is make things sink below the horizon. Things have to sink behind something. If it's not the curve of the earth then what is it?
Yeah, if you remove the atmosphere there's no longer a "curve" lmao. So your globe is just some assumption of curve when the atmospheric conditions are just right - just the right amount of refraction and misunderstandings to support your absurd debunked model.
"one thing perspective absolutely can't do is make things sink below the horizon." LOL. The horizon is a result of perspective. So everything that goes towards the horizon will disappear with it eventually. Basic angular resolution that zealots like you will always deny.
-
Yeah, if you remove the atmosphere there's no longer a "curve"
Incorrect. Refraction makes the curve appear less than the reality. But the Turning Torso video clearly shows the way distant objects disappear behind the curve of the earth.
The horizon is a result of perspective.
This is also incorrect. The horizon is the limit you can see before the earth curves away from you. That's why the distance to the horizon increases with altitude - it allows you to see further over the curve. Angular resolution clearly can't be the explanation. That does explain why you can't see things with the naked eye, but optical zoom can allow you to see them, if visibility allows. But why when zoomed in can you only see the top of the Turning Torso building? Why can't you see the rest? What's hiding it? I know the answer, do you?
-
I just realized that this "Turning Torso" observation obviously must be some globe zealot "white swan".
I could just as easily come up with FE's "black swan" and use it as "proof of FE". Or any of the hundreds of other observations that match the FE reality.
However, since I'm not an idiot and that wasn't the point, I'm not going to do so.
You present a tangible experiment, they give you excuses or pretend they don't know what you're talking about and they immediately go to cherrypicked observations because they have nothing else. Clear for all to see.
-
"Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.
This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Let’s park all discussions around curves, refraction etc for a second and focus on this. Can you show on a diagram why this would be the case? It doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.
-
"Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.
This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Let’s park all discussions around curves, refraction etc for a second and focus on this. Can you show on a diagram why this would be the case? It doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.
I will, for the sake of normal people who might read this. Not for you.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view)
-
"Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.
This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Let’s park all discussions around curves, refraction etc for a second and focus on this. Can you show on a diagram why this would be the case? It doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.
I will, for the sake of normal people who might read this. Not for you.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view)
"ground floors of buildings disappear first".
Why would they?
The angular size of the bottom floor is the same as the angular size of the top floor. Well, actually the top floor will have a smaller angular size if you're at ground level because the top floor is further away from you than the bottom. So why can you see the top floor but not the bottom?
-
"ground floors of buildings disappear first".
Why would they?
The angular size of the bottom floor is the same as the angular size of the top floor. So why can you see the top floor but not the bottom?
Because you're standing on the ground/sea, not 50 feet (or x feet) in the air to match building height half-way...
Well, actually the top floor will have a smaller angular size if you're at ground level because the top floor is further away from you than the bottom.
Nope. It's bigger.
-
Well, actually the top floor will have a smaller angular size if you're at ground level because the top floor is further away from you than the bottom.
Nope. It's bigger.
No.
Let's imagine you're a a thousand feet away from a building. And for the sake of simplicity let's say each floor is 20 feet high and your viewer height is 10 feet. That means your view of the bottom floor forms an isosoles triangle, the base of it is 20 feet and the long sides are 1000.05 (using pythagorus, it's the hypotenuse of the right angled triangle 1000 feet long and 10 high). Using a triangle calculator the angle at the point of that triangle, in blue, is 1.146 degrees, which is your angular size.
(https://i.ibb.co/mJrdz5C/Angular-Size.jpg)
You can also use Pythagorus to find the lengths of the sides of the triangle to the top floor. I've assumed 6 floors.
So those lines are the hypotenuses of the right angled triangles 1000 long and 90 high for the bottom line and 1000 long and 110 high for the top line. The base of that triangle is also 20 and the angle at the point of that triangle, in green, is 1.135 degrees. And that's the angular size of that floor, which is smaller.
This is obvious just be thinking about it. If you're looking up at a tall building then the higher floors appear smaller because they're further away. It's the same principle here.
-
IT IS BIGGER. In that stupid diagram you're not accounting for ground rising up (due to perspective).
So unless you think the top floor is at ground level too, you have problems.
-
IT IS BIGGER. In that stupid diagram you're not accounting for ground rising up (due to perspective).
That is accounted for by the line from the viewer to the bottom of the ground floor. That line is almost straight which demonstrates that the bottom of the ground floor is almost, but not quite at eye level.
So unless you think the top floor is at ground level, you have problems.
It's the fact that the top floor is NOT at ground level which makes it appear smaller.
As things get closer they appear bigger, yes?
Which is closer to you, the ground floor or the top one?
-
Ok, I take that back.
You're not accounting for the curvature of the eye - that's the real problem.
In the diagrams I presented you can clearly see it's bigger due to curvature of the eye/retina, plus you are standing at ground level or not very far from ground level.
Curvature of the eyes plus being close to the ground is also the reason why you can't see farther than you can and there is a horizon at a few miles.
We all have roughly the same eye shape, BTW. Usually an oblate spheroid. Coincidence? Of course not.
-
What I just said in my previous comment is 100% fact, by the way. And it 100% debunks the globe.
ONLY globe ZEALOTS will deny it and/or try to misrepresent it, or claim it's irrelevant (because some facts don't fit their narrative).
So, if you are someone who maybe believes in the globe but is not a globe zealot and you are reading this - just think for yourself, look at what I have presented from Google Drive and look at the facts.
This will help you understand it better:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QxdeK6MZDBsOBcUGxIWtOhvzL53vNIhF/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QxdeK6MZDBsOBcUGxIWtOhvzL53vNIhF/view)
-
You're not accounting for the curvature of the eye - that's the real problem.
I honestly wouldn't know how to and I don't believe you have to. I don't really understand the diagrams in the documents you posted.
But sure, if you want to demonstrate how to account for that in my diagram then I'll have a look.
Curvature of the eyes plus being close to the ground is also the reason why you can't see farther than you can and there is a horizon at a few miles.
Counterpoint - no it isn't. Because you CAN see further than the horizon - that's how you can see the rest of the Turning Torso building which is much further away than the horizon. You just can't see the bottom of it. Because it's hidden by something. What do you think that something is?
In your world you can see a few miiles of sea and then...there's thousands of miles more see in front of you but you can't see any of it? Why not? You can see the sun setting into the sea, which even in FE models is thousands of miles away. Where's the rest of the sea?
We all have roughly the same eye shape, BTW. Usually an oblate spheroid. Coincidence? Of course not.
It's neither coincidence nor relevant to this discussion.
-
You can see farther by using some optical device (or by going higher). But the device will also be optically limited. The fact that you deny this... well, I already said what I had to say.
Now it's your turn to claim reality is irrelevant and that Earth is still a globe regardless. You're already doing it, eh? Good job, ZEALOT!
-
What I just said in my previous comment is 100% fact, by the way. And it 100% debunks the globe.
ONLY globe ZEALOTS will deny it and/or try to misrepresent it.
So, if you are someone who maybe believes in the globe but is not a globe zealot and you are reading this - just think for yourself, look at what I have presented from Google Drive and look at the facts.
This will help you understand it better:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QxdeK6MZDBsOBcUGxIWtOhvzL53vNIhF/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QxdeK6MZDBsOBcUGxIWtOhvzL53vNIhF/view)
"It's true because I say it is".
What, exactly, is the relevance or provenance of the Google Drive stuff? Who wrote it? Who reviewed it? It's nonsense. For instance, in the second clip, the diagram illustrates rays of vision crossing in the middle of the orb of the eye. They don't; they cross in the lens.
And what is the relevance of "the curvature of the eye", when reviewing photographs.
-
"It's nonsense because I don't like those facts".
Keep digging lol.
-
You can see farther by using some optical device. But the device will also be optically limited. The fact that you deny this...
What? Of course I don't deny it. The Turning Torso video demonstrates this - at the greater distances the building is noticeably fainter, there is a limit to how far we can see things through the atmosphere (the sun being a notable exception because it's so bright). So visibility is one factor and yes, the limits of the optics is another. If that building were a few hundred miles away then I doubt the zoom would be powerful enough render it visible even if there were no atmospheric limits. But...given that the zoom is good enough to show the building at all the distances in that video, why do increasing amounts of the building disappear? It's not visibility or limits of the optics - the top of the building is clearly visible. Where's the rest of it? It's pretty clear it's being occluded by something and I'd suggest the only candidate for what is occluding it is the horizon itself.
-
"It's nonsense because I don't like those facts".
Keep digging lol.
But they aren't facts, are they? It's just random, unattributed slides from a "write-your-own-science" site on the internet.
LOL.
(Obviously, because a post isn't complete without disparaging your antagonists).
-
Antagonist because you decided to become a reality denier.
Good job.
But if you weren't a reality denier you wouldn't be a globe defender, so it fits.
-
"Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.
This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Let’s park all discussions around curves, refraction etc for a second and focus on this. Can you show on a diagram why this would be the case? It doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.
I will, for the sake of normal people who might read this. Not for you.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view)
As AATW has rightly pointed out, the diagrams you have linked to do nothing at all to prove the point you are trying to make. Quite the opposite, in fact. Pick any of the diagrams - let’s say the lamppost one - and look at the light ray coming from the bottom of the furthest lamppost - from point F back the to eye at point E. There no reason shown why that light ray can’t get to the eye, nor is there anything different about it compared to, say, the light rays coming from the top of the same lamppost or indeed any of the other parts of any of the other lampposts.
What the diagrams do show is that as objects get further away, the angle that they subtend at the viewer gets smaller, and they therefore become harder and harder to resolve without magnification. But they don’t disappear from view on a perfectly flat plane. There is no explanation for a horizon if the earth is flat, nor is one being offered, nor are you capable of offering one. You just throw insults around.
You also seem to be aware of the problem and are now resorting to the incredibly odd argument that it is, in fact, something to do with the shape of our eyes. That makes no sense whatsoever - our eyes and brains are clearly able to see and identify when things are straight or bent - there isn’t an issue there. So what exactly is happening, in your view? Draw us a diagram please.
-
To the ZEALOT above:
Stop pretending that you are the voice of reason when really you're just spewing utter garbage that reads well but makes no sense (or ignores what I already explained).
Seems like your "job" here is to lie and misrepresent in the same fashion that politicians do. Maybe this is how you were raised because you were taught or you thought this is real clever. It's not.
There are absolutely no problems with what I presented & explained. Period. No amount of trying to misrepresent or lie about it is going to change it.
To the non-zealous READER who might be on the fence:
Like I said, only globe zealots like this one here will try to misrepresent what I presented & explained or just outright lie about it with statements such as "how we see the world has nothing to do with the sape of our eyes". Ultimately he is cognitively forced to lie & deny reality because certain facts don't fit his worldview and he's not willing to change his mind when new facts are presented. So he will lie again, and again, and again because he has beliefs to defend and he's a staunch zealot on task for his globe/heliocentric cult.
Your choice if you want to fall for the globe-defending politician-like nonsense (that reads well, but is nonsense nonetheless) or you want to take a look at the facts yourself and use your brain.
Avoid the liars. Focus on the FACTS.
(https://i.imgur.com/Rem81Se.png)
-
To the ZEALOT above:
Stop pretending that you are the voice of reason when really you're just spewing utter garbage that reads well but makes no sense (or ignores what I already explained).
Seems like your "job" here is to lie and misrepresent in the same fashion that politicians do. Maybe this is how you were raised because you were taught or you thought this is real clever. It's not.
There are absolutely no problems with what I presented & explained. Period. No amount of trying to misrepresent or lie about it is going to change it.
To the non-zealous READER who might be on the fence:
Like I said, only globe zealots like this one here will try to misrepresent what I presented & explained or just outright lie about it with statements such as "how we see the world has nothing to do with the sape of our eyes". Ultimately he is cognitively forced to lie & deny reality because certain facts don't fit his worldview and he's not willing to change his mind when new facts are presented. So he will lie again, and again, and again because he has beliefs to defend and he's a staunch zealot on task for his globe/heliocentric cult.
Your choice if you want to fall for the globe-defending politician-like nonsense (that reads well, but is nonsense nonetheless) or you want to take a look at the facts yourself and use your brain.
Avoid the liars. Focus on the FACTS.
(https://i.imgur.com/Rem81Se.png)
What are those black lines on the picture trying to show?
-
To the ZEALOT above:
Stop pretending that you are the voice of reason when really you're just spewing utter garbage that reads well but makes no sense (or ignores what I already explained).
Seems like your "job" here is to lie and misrepresent in the same fashion that politicians do. Maybe this is how you were raised because you were taught or you thought this is real clever. It's not.
There are absolutely no problems with what I presented & explained. Period. No amount of trying to misrepresent or lie about it is going to change it.
To the non-zealous READER who might be on the fence:
Like I said, only globe zealots like this one here will try to misrepresent what I presented & explained or just outright lie about it with statements such as "how we see the world has nothing to do with the sape of our eyes". Ultimately he is cognitively forced to lie & deny reality because certain facts don't fit his worldview and he's not willing to change his mind when new facts are presented. So he will lie again, and again, and again because he has beliefs to defend and he's a staunch zealot on task for his globe/heliocentric cult.
Your choice if you want to fall for the globe-defending politician-like nonsense (that reads well, but is nonsense nonetheless) or you want to take a look at the facts yourself and use your brain.
Avoid the liars. Focus on the FACTS.
(https://i.imgur.com/Rem81Se.png)
What are those black lines on the picture trying to show?
My guess is that they are supposed to be perspective lines headed towards various vanishing points. However, it appears that he doesn't understand that there are rules to perspective, not the least of which is the rule that says that parallel lines converge towards a single vanishing point. And before you say it, of course there is multi-point perspective, but those are different vanishing points for different sets of parallel lines.
More about actual perspective here:
https://www.sfu.ca/~rpyke/perspective.pdf
-
Lesson #2
With the help of these two real photographs, you can see how the light enters the eye along its curved surface. Globe-defenders who make absurd claims of "horizon is the curve" & "eye shape has nothing to do with how we see" cannot deny this (but they will probably say that it's irrelevant ;D).
(https://i.imgur.com/3MUuXd9.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/oY54FBU.jpg)
Of course, the light doesn't stop there and it all gets "corrected" by the time your brain receives the image. But bare in mind how the light enters your eye before it travels and gets converted inside your retina. This is the key.
-
Yes, round eyes.
The irony, however, is that every image on this thread was not taken by a round eye-ball, but by a camera.
A flat, focal plane, camera.
-
Yes, round eyes.
The irony, however, is that every image on this thread was not taken by a round eye-ball, but by a camera.
A flat, focal plane, camera.
Supposed to be a joke?
(https://i.imgur.com/cOEcEfc.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sEjotVD.png)
https://mammothmemory.net/physics/lenses/convex-lenses/convex-lens-uses-camera.html (https://mammothmemory.net/physics/lenses/convex-lenses/convex-lens-uses-camera.html)
-
Exactly. The focal plane ("sensor") is flat; thanks for the unnecessary diagram.
If you are serious about this, you really need to study optics, opthalmics and camera theory. Come back and tell us about the roundness of a pin-hole camera for instance, or where is the single point of the human eye through which all the light rays pass (Hint; its not the middle of the oblate spheroid).
And I don't mean "look something up on You-Tube", I mean actually study the subjects you are "teaching" us about.
edit; does anyone actually study anything these days?
-
Exactly. The focal plane ("sensor") is flat; thanks for the unnecessary diagram.
If you are serious about this, you really need to study optics, opthalmics and camera theory. Come back and tell us about the roundness of a pin-hole camera for instance, or where is the single point of the human eye through which all the light rays pass (Hint; its not the middle of the oblate spheroid).
And I don't mean "look something up on You-Tube", I mean actually study the subjects you are "teaching" us about.
edit; does anyone actually study anything these days?
So because the sensor is flat, let's ignore the lens elements of the camera is your logic (that the light goes through before it hits the mirror or the sensor).
You seem to be saying that a pinhole/pupil is not round, which is funny considering that you're supposed to be the expert.
Ok, let's study together since I don't think you are the expert that you claim to be.
After light enters the pupil, it seems to be hitting a lens, as per this diagram:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Schematic_diagram_of_the_human_eye_en.svg/755px-Schematic_diagram_of_the_human_eye_en.svg.png)
Does that work a little something like this diagram from the previous link "Convex lens uses – Camera" shows?
(https://mammothmemory.net/images/user/base/Physics/Lenses/Uses/camera/lens-uses-camera-eye-25.1b8400e.jpg)
Can you please explain why this isn't relevant because the camera sensor is flat?
Oh, and also, oops, the cornea is convex too (shaped like a dome in fact).
So far I think I have established that you need the dome-shaped cornea and the convex lens behind the pupil to be able to see correctly. And I did it without YouTube - wow!
-
I’m confused what you’re arguing here, Dual1ty.
You previously posted some high altitude photo of a flat horizon which seemed to be your evidence that it was in fact flat. As I noted, in one of those the horizon was actually curved upwards. There’s no doubt that lenses can distort things. But only things like fisheye lenses do that. Most cameras represent things accurately. It’s not hard to demonstrate that. Just take a picture of a known straight edge and observe that the picture shows it as straight.
Point is, you dismiss curved horizon photos because of distortion or something. But then you present other photos with apparent straight horizons as evidence. You can’t have it both ways.
-
I’m confused what you’re arguing here, Dual1ty.
You previously posted some high altitude photo of a flat horizon which seemed to be your evidence that it was in fact flat. As I noted, in one of those the horizon was actually curved upwards. There’s no doubt that lenses can distort things. But only things like fisheye lenses do that. Most cameras represent things accurately. It’s not hard to demonstrate that. Just take a picture of a known straight edge and observe that the picture shows it as straight.
Point is, you dismiss curved horizon photos because of distortion or something. But then you present other photos with apparent straight horizons as evidence. You can’t have it both ways.
I did not present those as evidence of anything, just to make a point which I already explained after I presented those images.
You're ignoring what I explained because you want to join the club of the globe-defending liars.
And, I did not post those images here but in AR nonsenseland, so the fact that you're bringing those up here shows your dishonesty.
-
Of course, the light doesn't stop there and it all gets "corrected" by the time your brain receives the image. But bare in mind how the light enters your eye before it travels and gets converted inside your retina. This is the key.
How can your brain tell the difference between flat and curved if light is being affected by so many curved lenses?