The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Pancake on September 28, 2017, 12:15:07 PM
-
Or are all the other planets round aswell? what about exoplanets?
-
Or are all the other planets round aswell? what about exoplanets?
"Earth isn't a planet, and therefore doesn't follow the rules of planets being round" I highly suggest starting in the wiki, it has this answer and many others to help guide you into the study of this curious idea.
-
Thanks for your reply. So all 'planets' are round? How about the (our) moon?
-
Thanks for your reply. So all 'planets' are round? How about the (our) moon?
There seems to be some debate on that within the community. There are issues with it being flat, and issues with it being round, and I've never seen anyone nail down precisely how to fix one or the other. Common thought is that it's round though I believe.
-
Here is a picture of the moon I took. You can see its been hit by a big asteroid at the bottom, and the debris field has a curve. Would this not be straight, if the moon was flat? Anyone else care to input on this?
-
Here is a picture of the moon I took. You can see its been hit by a big asteroid at the bottom, and the debris field has a curve. Would this not be straight, if the moon was flat? Anyone else care to input on this?
Wow! That's a very elegant proof that the moon is round. Thank you!
Now we just have to worry about why the moon looks exactly the same whether it's on the Eastern horizon, Western horizon or vertically overhead - noting carefully that in different parts of the world, it is all three of those things at once. If it's 3000 miles above the earth - but 6000 miles away when it's on the horizon - then we should be seeing almost complete opposite sides of the moon from the two moonrise/moonset locations - and the underside of the moon from the "overhead" location.
The only explanation I've heard from this one is that the moon is a hologram projected up there by NASA...for which the English translation is: "DON'T WORRY! IT'S MAGIC!!!".
Doubtless Tom can make his "alternative perspective" thing fix this problem...he's already tying light rays into pretzels in half a dozen other ways.
-
Ok I dont think I believe the hologram explanation, why would they not just 'project' different sides? Why project it at all? Plus doesnt a projector need something to project on to? It would also have to be one hell of a projector to shine so brightly, and so big, 3-6000 miles away.
-
Ok I dont think I believe the hologram explanation, why would they not just 'project' different sides? Why project it at all? Plus doesnt a projector need something to project on to? It would also have to be one hell of a projector to shine so brightly, and so big, 3-6000 miles away.
Hey - I didn't say it was a GOOD explanation! (And how did this work two thousand years before the invention of the hologram?)
Holograms don't really work that way anyway - you have to be looking into the projector in order to be able to see the hologram.
This idea can only have been cooked up by people who believe that R2D2's hologram of Princess Leia was an actual real thing!
-
Thanks for your reply. So all 'planets' are round? How about the (our) moon?
The moon is round. God only knows what 3DGeek is on about.
-
Thanks for your reply. So all 'planets' are round? How about the (our) moon?
The moon is round. God only knows what 3DGeek is on about.
Another assertion from other sections of the FE community. There are groups who claim it's flat, and others who claim it's just a hologram projected onto the dome. It's always a little mind-boggling (imo) just how many ideas any one section of FE can have.
-
Yes, other FE groups exist and they're very different from us. I'm surprised that I need to explain this, but I'm not going to take responsibility for these other groups. If you have an issue with something they say, take it up with them, not us.
-
Or are all the other planets round aswell? what about exoplanets?
hi, Pancake(that sounds funny! ;D), you can read my re-translation of a hypothesis, Although it's a big mess with flawed logic, i think it's still a useful information.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6625.0
-
Yes, other FE groups exist and they're very different from us. I'm surprised that I need to explain this, but I'm not going to take responsibility for these other groups. If you have an issue with something they say, take it up with them, not us.
I mean, someone on this very forum is the one who just recently suggested the moon is a hologram. You were asking what he was on about, my best guess is saying what some other ideas are. It's Q&A, isn't that what should be done here? Answer the question as fully as possible? With no true unified theory on anything, it seems like one should be presenting all of the thoughts on any subject to give the asker research options.
-
Yes, other FE groups exist and they're very different from us. I'm surprised that I need to explain this, but I'm not going to take responsibility for these other groups. If you have an issue with something they say, take it up with them, not us.
Then let me try to explain the "moon problem" to you - perhaps you could explain your personal point of view about it? You're surely not going to dodge this issue are you?
At some point in time, the moon will be vertically overhead some point on the Flat Earth - right? Let's suppose that place is on the equator at the zero meridian - right about on the West coast of Africa near the city of Accra. When someone tips their head back and looks at the moon - what do they see? Something like this pattern of mareis and impact craters?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Moon_names.svg/512px-Moon_names.svg.png)
OK. So if the moon is a round ball, then we're seeing the "bottom" hemisphere of it.
Now - suppose we're in London at the same moment in time. Because the moon is about 4,000 miles to the south of us and about 3,000 miles up - we should be seeing it in the southern skies. But we're definitely NOT looking at the underside of the moon. Maybe we can see much more of the top of the moon than can be seen from Accra - and some of the bottom part must be obscured. So maybe we can't see that giant "splat" that is Tycho crater because it's off on the other side of the moon from where we're looking.
Then, consider someone way south - maybe on the coast of Antarctica (maybe on the Ice Wall) - now, the moon is in the Northern skies - and again we can't see all of the bottom half of it - but Tycho crater should be right in the middle of the moon's disk.
We can go further and imagine views from the East coast of Mexico and India - which would let us see yet different sides of the moon.
We'd be able to see almost all of the moon's surface - and the image of the moon would look VERY different from each place.
Needless to say, this doesn't happen.
Worse still - what about the PHASES of the moon? If the moon is full in India - then it should be a new moon in Mexico, and a half-moon in London and Antarctica.
The amount of the moon in shadow is (in reality) the same from everywhere that the moon is visible.
Can you explain this? I don't think so.
-
3dGeek, here is another take on a similar problem with the moon.
Imagine the unipolar view (first drawing on https://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents (https://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents)) with clock marks for ease of discussion. Let's say that the moon is at the 9:00 position to the right, south of North America. The sun is at the 3:00 position, south of India. We are viewing from the U.S. This is where there should be a full moon, right?
If the sun and moon are about 3k miles above the Earth, there will be an angle from the viewpoint on Earth to the sun, and another angle from the viewpoint to the moon. Whatever those angles are, the light from the sun is illuminating the half of the moon towards the sun, and we are viewing from a lower angle. Therefore, we could never see a full moon. It might be nearly full, but never completely round/full.
-
Can you explain this? I don't think so.
I have described the mechanism elsewhere.
This is because the higher a receding body is, the less it turns to its side to perspective. In the Moon's case it is such a great hight that it barely turns at all (it does turn a little, however; look up the moon's daily liberation).
The Ancient Greeks did not really test how perspective works on a large scale, and their math assumes a continuous universe (ie. that the turn will be infinitely slower, and that perspective lines will recede infinitely into the distance without meeting) without any real evidence for that at all.
It is possible to theorize with their math that the moon should turn more than it does, but no real evidence for how things should be at that scale. Does the slowness max out at some point? Do the perspective lines really continue infinitely? These are unanswered questions and an ancient mathematical model is insufficient as an explanation.
If you have a solved rubix cube suspended 1 foot above your head and look upwards you will see its white underside. If this rubix cube then floats across the room you will be able to see its green colored side when it reaches the far wall 30 feet away.
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.
One could easily claim that perspective scales repressively and slows down to an increasingly infinitesimal pace with increased distance, and that theory would be just as accurate as the theories of the Ancient Greeks who have neglected to provide evidence for the maximums of perspective theory.
Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.
All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
Again you try to twist the point. Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle. If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on. You are not going to see their back. I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet. As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away. It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.
Your evidence is based on a thought experiment, not what actually happens at large distances.
-
Tom, you keep bringing up your magic perspective. There are several threads in the debate section in which it has been taken to task, because it's ludicrous. It would show good faith to answer those objections before continuing using it. Considering how perspective works in the real world, the explanation above is gobbledygook
-
Now - suppose we're in London at the same moment in time. Because the moon is about 4,000 miles to the south of us and about 3,000 miles up - we should be seeing it in the southern skies.
This assumption is false. As such, the rest of your diatribe becomes largely irrelevant. You attempt to confuse people with long elaborate posts (let me once again remind everyone how many times 3DG condescendingly explained how ping works when we pointed out his method is flawed - his methodology caused him to mistake Texas for Japan) in the hopes that people won't pick up the simple contradiction. But your fault is usually concentrated within one sentence.
-
This assumption is false.
did i already tell you that this debate style isn't helping anybody? (FE and RE people alike).
All the keystrokes spent on personal attacks could have been employed in explaining which assumption you are talking about, because there's more than one there. A couple more in telling why it is.
-
Tom, you keep bringing up your magic perspective. There are several threads in the debate section in which it has been taken to task, because it's ludicrous. It would show good faith to answer those objections before continuing using it. Considering how perspective works in the real world, the explanation above is gobbledygook
The thread where I got those quotes from was not responded to. If no one responds to me I win, right? Why not respond to my winning argument?
-
This is because the higher a receding body is, the less it turns to its side to perspective. In the Moon's case it is such a great hight that it barely turns at all (it does turn a little, however; look up the moon's daily liberation).
The Ancient Greeks did not really test how perspective works on a large scale, and their math assumes a continuous universe (ie. that the turn will be infinitely slower, and that perspective lines will recede infinitely into the distance without meeting) without any real evidence for that at all.
It is possible to theorize with their math that the moon should turn more than it does, but no real evidence for how things should be at that scale. Does the slowness max out at some point? Do the perspective lines really continue infinitely? These are unanswered questions and an ancient mathematical model is insufficient as an explanation.
All of these doubts and confusions vanish if instead of continuing to talk about the magical mystery that perspective seems to hold for you that you instead just think CAREFULLY about where the photons travel from the subject to the viewer.
If you have a solved rubix cube suspended 1 foot above your head and look upwards you will see its white underside. If this rubix cube then floats across the room you will be able to see its green colored side when it reaches the far wall 30 feet away.
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
Awesome example!
So in your example - the cube is a mile (5280 feet) overhead - and as it moves the width of your room (let's say 20 feet), yes, indeed, you'll hardly see any of the sides.
HOWEVER, let's no stop there. Let's continue with the experiment - so the cube doesn't stop over our 20 foot room...it keeps moving...it's 100 feet away, 200 feet...1000 feet...5000 feet...5280 feet off to the side. Now what do we see? Well, the cube is now at an angle of 45 degrees to us - and we see half of it as the white underside and the other half as green.
But if I keep the cube there - and walk a mile so I'm again standing underneath it - then again I see only the white side. So I bring two friends along....one of them stands in my room, 1 mile away...the other walks a mile off in the opposite direction.
We call each other on our cellphones and figure out what we are each seeing.
I look straight up and I see a white cube. My buddy back in the room sees half-white and half green...and the guy who walked another mile looks back at the cube and sees half white and half red!
So now let's replace the rubics cube with the moon.
I see the underside - one guy sees half of what I see and half of some entirely new part of the moon that's invisible to me - and the other guy sees half of what I see and some yet different part.
All three of us see different aspects of the cube.
THAT is the problem you have with the moon. I'm standing where the moon is 3000 miles vertically overhead and my two friends are standing 3000 (or as much as 6000) miles either side of me where the moon is rising for one of them and setting for the other.
Flip the moon out and replace it with a 30 mile rubic cube - and the problem is clear.
As a object increases its height it will turn slower.
Your thought experiment is lacking because you constrained the horizontal distance of the object to some ridiculously small distance as you increased the altitude.
Using your typically weird phrasing:
"As the object get higher (without moving off to the side) it 'rotates less' - but as the object moves further off to the side (without changing altitude) it 'rotates more'. When you combine these two motions, they cancel out exactly. So the 'rotation' is the same for the moon at 3000 miles up and 3000 miles off to the side as it is for a rubic cube 3 feet up and 3 feet off to the side."
Phrasing things like that is weird...inaccurate...just *WRONG*...but that's where your thought processes are broken.
We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow?
Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.
We don't need "data" - we know that light travels in straight lines and the laws of Eulerian geometry are indisputable. So we don't need to "guess" - we can use the awesome power of GEOMETRY to know the answer for sure.
One could easily claim that perspective scales repressively and slows down to an increasingly infinitesimal pace with increased distance, and that theory would be just as accurate as the theories of the Ancient Greeks who have neglected to provide evidence for the maximums of perspective theory.
That's incorrect - and when (if) you ever get around to telling me how the photons move instead of confusing yourself with "rotations" and "vanishing points" - the answer becomes crystal clear.
I'm all for "doubt" - but when the physical situation is well understood, we can stop guessing and actually figure it out.
Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.
All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
Or it's evidence that the Earth isn't Flat.
You see you're only puzzled at how perspective works on the Flat Earth because you're convinced that the Earth is flat.
The rest of us are pointing out that perspective works very simply and as an 'emergent property' of the fact that light travels in straight lines.
These problems of yours go away completely when you assume a round earth solution.
You interpret this as "magic perspective" because that's the only way you can continue to believe that the earth is flat. When you look carefully at "non-magic" perspective - it debunks the flat earth hypothesis - and confirms that the world is round.
Again you try to twist the point. Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle. If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on. You are not going to see their back. I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet. As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away. It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.
Your evidence is based on a thought experiment, not what actually happens at large distances.
[/quote]
But Tom - your "evidence" is that the standard laws of perspective are incorrect because normal perspective doesn't work in the flat earth...that's not evidence! That's the opposite of evidence.
Your argument goes like this:
* If the earth is flat then...
* Sunsets wouldn't happen with normal perspective...
* So perspective must be "magic"...
* So when the RE'ers say "Hey sunsets can't happen unless the Earth is round"...
* You can say "Aha! But I can prove that they happen in the flat earth because perspective is magic.
* When the RE'ers say "But perspective can't be magic because light travels in straight lines"...
* You can say "AHA! But if that were true then there would be no sunsets - ergo perspective is magic.
* ...and therefore perspective is magic.
* ...and therefore the Earth is flat.
...but that's one gigantic circular argument. At no point did you prove that perspective is magic. All you did was prove that "IF the world is flat THEN perspective is magic"...which is most certainly not the same thing!
We're saying "Perspective ISN'T magic (it cannot be if light travels in straight lines) SO the Earth isn't Flat".
-
The thread where I got those quotes from was not responded to. If no one responds to me I win, right? Why not respond to my winning argument?
This is the thread: Each of Tom's posts gets a worthy response. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6673) He is obviously lying.
-
Can you explain this? I don't think so.
I have described the mechanism elsewhere.
No, you have described how it has to work for your FE to work.
This is because the higher a receding body is, the less it turns to its side to perspective. In the Moon's case it is such a great hight that it barely turns at all (it does turn a little, however; look up the moon's daily liberation).
The Ancient Greeks did not really test how perspective works on a large scale, and their math assumes a continuous universe (ie. that the turn will be infinitely slower, and that perspective lines will recede infinitely into the distance without meeting) without any real evidence for that at all.
It is possible to theorize with their math that the moon should turn more than it does, but no real evidence for how things should be at that scale. Does the slowness max out at some point? Do the perspective lines really continue infinitely? These are unanswered questions and an ancient mathematical model is insufficient as an explanation.
You have no evidence that simple geometry stops working at a 'large scale' either.
If you have a solved rubix cube suspended 1 foot above your head and look upwards you will see its white underside. If this rubix cube then floats across the room you will be able to see its green colored side when it reaches the far wall 30 feet away.
However, if that same rubix cube is instead 1 mile above your head, and it travels across the length of your room, you will NOT be able to see is green colored side. The rubix cube will have hardly turned at all when it gets to a position 30 feet away. You will still be looking at its white underside.
As a object increases its height it will turn slower. We do not know how slow, however. Infinitely slow? Does the slowness become imperceptible or perhaps stop turning altogether at some point? Could it be that an object turns so slow that it reaches the vanishing point before rotating to any significant degree? There is a lack of data because the maximums of perspective theory were never studied.
This argument is a strawman at best. You can't compare 30 feet to 1 mile after comparing 30 feet to 30 feet. It's not the distance that's the issue here, it's the ratio. 1 mile up to 1 mile away if what you want, and I bet you can see the green side at that point. But we're also talking 1 mile up and 2 miles away for the proper ratios. You can definitely see the green side there.
One could easily claim that perspective scales repressively and slows down to an increasingly infinitesimal pace with increased distance, and that theory would be just as accurate as the theories of the Ancient Greeks who have neglected to provide evidence for the maximums of perspective theory.
No you couldn't, because you have no evidence for that.
Is there any evidence that it changes as you declare it should though? Because if there is I haven't seen you trot it out.
All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
AANNND none of those count, because they turn just as would be expected under RE. You can't assume a FE for your argument for a FE.
Again you try to twist the point. Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle. If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on. You are not going to see their back. I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet. As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away. It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.
Your evidence is based on a thought experiment, not what actually happens at large distances.
And yours is based on the assumption the Earth is flat rather than round. You have zero evidence for large distances either.
-
Tom, you keep bringing up your magic perspective. There are several threads in the debate section in which it has been taken to task, because it's ludicrous. It would show good faith to answer those objections before continuing using it. Considering how perspective works in the real world, the explanation above is gobbledygook
The thread where I got those quotes from was not responded to. If no one responds to me I win, right? Why not respond to my winning argument?
that's not correct, you kept ignoring the answers, and kept stating without reasons that perspective should somehow be different when stuff is far away.
You say this everytime, by the way, and never motivate it. As I already asked time and again in a thread precisely about perspective you've apparently run away from (did you lose, there?):
Perspective is a consequence of how our vision works.
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.
Do you agree with those assumptions?
-
Here is a picture of the moon I took. You can see its been hit by a big asteroid at the bottom, and the debris field has a curve. Would this not be straight, if the moon was flat? Anyone else care to input on this?
One could say that, by the same coin, the Earth is round. That wouldn't be too fallacious of a statement at that point.
-
Tom, you keep bringing up your magic perspective. There are several threads in the debate section in which it has been taken to task, because it's ludicrous. It would show good faith to answer those objections before continuing using it. Considering how perspective works in the real world, the explanation above is gobbledygook
The thread where I got those quotes from was not responded to. If no one responds to me I win, right? Why not respond to my winning argument?
that's not correct, you kept ignoring the answers, and kept stating without reasons that perspective should somehow be different when stuff is far away.
You say this everytime, by the way, and never motivate it. As I already asked time and again in a thread precisely about perspective you've apparently run away from (did you lose, there?):
Perspective is a consequence of how our vision works.
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.
Do you agree with those assumptions?
Tom is on record as saying that light travels in straight lines. But he's also agreed with the Wiki statement that the size of the sun on the horizon is a consequence of it's brightness - which doesn't explain the moon and stars at the horizon. He's also agreed with another Wiki statement that various aspects of this are due to the limitations of human vision - which implies that cameras should work differently. Then, when we tried VERY hard to pin him down to where the photons from the sun travel to reach our eyes at sunset - he made a whole series of very bizarre posts that definitely cast doubt on whether he agrees that objects have a definite position...saying that perspective "moves things" to the horizon.
So life isn't quite so simple.
The thing is that Tom doesn't have a coherent story in his own head - and the more we probe into his beliefs, the more bizarre his responses get.
He's promised us that he'll start a new thread and explain the motion of photons as they move from the sun to our eyes at sunset - but as yet....crickets.
-
Tom, you keep bringing up your magic perspective. There are several threads in the debate section in which it has been taken to task, because it's ludicrous. It would show good faith to answer those objections before continuing using it. Considering how perspective works in the real world, the explanation above is gobbledygook
The thread where I got those quotes from was not responded to. If no one responds to me I win, right? Why not respond to my winning argument?
that's not correct, you kept ignoring the answers, and kept stating without reasons that perspective should somehow be different when stuff is far away.
You say this everytime, by the way, and never motivate it. As I already asked time and again in a thread precisely about perspective you've apparently run away from (did you lose, there?):
Perspective is a consequence of how our vision works.
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.
Do you agree with those assumptions?
Tom is on record as saying that light travels in straight lines. But he's also agreed with the Wiki statement that the size of the sun on the horizon is a consequence of it's brightness - which doesn't explain the moon and stars at the horizon. He's also agreed with another Wiki statement that various aspects of this are due to the limitations of human vision - which implies that cameras should work differently. Then, when we tried VERY hard to pin him down to where the photons from the sun travel to reach our eyes at sunset - he made a whole series of very bizarre posts that definitely cast doubt on whether he agrees that objects have a definite position...saying that perspective "moves things" to the horizon.
So life isn't quite so simple.
The thing is that Tom doesn't have a coherent story in his own head - and the more we probe into his beliefs, the more bizarre his responses get.
He's promised us that he'll start a new thread and explain the motion of photons as they move from the sun to our eyes at sunset - but as yet....crickets.
So I've been reading back through the debate thread for a little while now (too much time, to little to do, and this is the most interesting thing I have right now) and I think I've managed to piece together a decent explanation of Tom's view. Believe it or not this perspective stuff has come up a lot before.
Disclaimer: I don't claim for this to make sense, nor am I attempting to 100% represent Tom's opinion. This is what I've taken away based on his replies over the course of multiple other threads I've been reading.
The viewpoint Tom 'seems' to be espousing, is that what you see is your personal reality. The sun sets due to perspective for you, so for you the sun is in fact floating down to the ground/horizon. Where the sun actually is isn't relevant, only where it is for your reality. The guy standing under it, seeing it at 3000 miles high? Well that's great, that's where it is for him. For you, seeing it at sunset, the sun is getting closer and closer to simply merging with the ground. Is it actually there? Doesn't matter, it's there for your reality and that's what matters.
Remember, Tom seems to come at anything with his preconceived notion of the Earth being flat. That means anything he sees *has* to fit within that viewpoint. No matter what it takes to explain it. One of my favorite new quotes from him (I'ma butcher the exact wording, but here goes my shot) "[Looking at the sun setting] I can tell you the sun is on the horizon....'Appear' is implied. Why would I say it?"
As for slightly on topic, I believe most FE believe it's only the Earth that is flat, because the Earth is 'special' in various ways, depending on who you ask and what their convictions might be.
-
The viewpoint Tom 'seems' to be espousing, is that what you see is your personal reality. The sun sets due to perspective for you, so for you the sun is in fact floating down to the ground/horizon. Where the sun actually is isn't relevant, only where it is for your reality. The guy standing under it, seeing it at 3000 miles high? Well that's great, that's where it is for him. For you, seeing it at sunset, the sun is getting closer and closer to simply merging with the ground. Is it actually there? Doesn't matter, it's there for your reality and that's what matters.
That kinda solves the problem - but it leads down the slippery slope to "I think therefore I am" - and that's the only thing you can truly know.
If we each have our own reality - then why bother with any kind of debate about anything anywhere.
As human beings, we rely 100% on the fact that we have shared experiences.
If I'm approaching a stop light (showing GREEN) in my car at 50mph - I rely on the shared experience of the guy who's going at 50mph on the cross-street. If his perception of the reality of the state of the stop light differs from mine - then I cannot safely drive through the intersection because in his reality, the light may be green there too.
Taking this to any reasonable next step means that you're completely crippled in the world.
Belief in common shared experiences of a verifiable external reality is at the heart of all human existence. Deny that and all bets are off...truly ALL bets.
Remember, Tom seems to come at anything with his preconceived notion of the Earth being flat. That means anything he sees *has* to fit within that viewpoint. No matter what it takes to explain it. One of my favorite new quotes from him (I'ma butcher the exact wording, but here goes my shot) "[Looking at the sun setting] I can tell you the sun is on the horizon....'Appear' is implied. Why would I say it?"
Sure - we have no problem with "The sun APPEARS to be on the horizon at sunset" in casual speech. Even in RET, we know that there isn't a continually exploding hydrogen bomb sitting in a field 10 miles away...we say that it's "On the horizon" - when we know that's not REALLY where it is.
However, intelligent, thinking beings can infer the PHYSICAL location of things independently from where they APPEAR to be. In response to multiple direct questions about the PHYSICAL location of the sun - Tom simply would not answer that question...every question either used the word "APPEARS" - or omitted it and presume we'd understand from context.
So, sure - I understand he was talking about where the sun APPEARS to be. All I wanted was for him to tell me where it is PHYSICALLY located. (Actually, from FET, it's bloody obvious...but then it's also bloody obvious that FET is bullshit).
As for slightly on topic, I believe most FE believe it's only the Earth that is flat, because the Earth is 'special' in various ways, depending on who you ask and what their convictions might be.
Sure - humans have always felt this way. When we lived in caves, we probably thought our caves were the center of the universe. When we understood the whole planet - we said that the planet was at the center of the universe. Then heliocentricism came along and we believed that the Sun was the center of the universe. Even as late as the 1920's we still believed that the Milky Way galaxy was the center of the universe. Early estimates of redshift from distant galaxies showed them all receding from us...reinforcing the idea that we're at the center of the universe. But then - we figure out that the expansion of space itself means that we're not likely to be in the center of anything.
So it's in the nature of history to drive us into more and more humble positions. Some people can't take that - hence they have no problem with the Earth being SO special that it's utterly unique.
Personally, I find the Flat Earth hypothesis deeply horrible: "Good luck guys - this 8,000 mile disk and the air up to 60 miles above us is all there is, and all there will ever be. We've explored almost all of it. There is nothing new to find."...good grief that's a depressing prospect.
In the Round Earth, we have guys like Elon Musk and the "Mars One" group seriously talking about starting a Mars colony within my lifetime. Actually designing the spacecraft with the capability to take us there. We're *SO* close to being able to do spectrographic analysis of the atmospheres of other Earthlike planets - and to see if there are obvious industrial pollutants there pointing to other beings that could communicate with. In just a couple of years we'll know that.
That's the kind of universe I want to live in!
-
Tom Bishop, that's not fair, when we're talking about discovering the truth.