The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: exadon on February 02, 2018, 02:57:20 AM
-
The moon looks "upside down" to those in the southern hemisphere in comparison to those who live in the northern hemisphere. This simple fact would appear to break the current flat earth orbit model.
-
It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wDzUPIe.jpg)
-
It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wDzUPIe.jpg)
Elucid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?
-
It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wDzUPIe.jpg)
Elucid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?
When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.
-
When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.
It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.
-
When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.
It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.
In other words, the world doesn't behave as expected if it were flat, so you have to call into question the very geometry of the universe instead of just accepting that it is a globe. (about which, there is an incredible amount of real world data) Did i get that right? Let's play out your line of reasoning - space isn't euclidean at a distance. If that were true, the sun would become more and more distorted as it moved away from us. It doesn't. Not even a little. The problem you have is that light passes through the universe. If space were distorted enough to move the sun below the horizon, it would also massively distort it's shape. (unless you're postulating that the distortion only occurs in precisely once direction)
-
It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.
It's pretty self evident that a receding body overhead won't reach much less intersect the horizon. I drew this before
(https://image.ibb.co/g2saWm/4.jpg)
And yes, yes, I know you're going to shout "but, perspective!" but think about it. How do you see something? Light from a source bounces off an object and into your eyes.
Photons bouncing from the top and bottom of the person on the right can travel in a straight line to the person on the left's eyes. So he can see the whole person.
As the person on the right gets further away all that changes is the angle at the eye which gets smaller and so the image formed on the person's retina gets smaller.
At some point the person will no longer be visible because of limitations in the person's vision. At that point some magnification would bring the person back into view, unless there was another limiting factor like atmospheric conditions.
On a plane the person will not sink below the horizon, they will be visible for as long as the person's vision allows because there is always clear line of sight between the people.
With a sun 3000 miles high (how is that triangulation experiment coming along by the way to prove that distance is correct?) and 6000 miles away the sun will clearly be above the horizon at all times. And even if you think perspective works in some way which...well in a way which it just doesn't work in, all you have to do to prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY on the horizon is observe long shadows at sunset. Those just cannot be cast by a sun which is where your model says it is. Because the angle and length of shadows cast is determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object, not perspective. I previously suggested doing an experiment in a dark room with an object and a torch. The only way of casting long shadows will be to place the torch on the ground so it is physically on the same level as the object.
-
When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.
It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.
The 'approaching infinity' bit is irrelevant. We're dealing with known numbers that aren't anywhere near infinity. That's simply a red herring, some might even say a strawman. Let's lay this out.
The math works at any testable distance. For fun, let's say the distance is 3000 cm high, and 6000 cm away. What does the math tell me I should measure for angles? 26.565°. Does it turn out that way in reality? If I remember my math classes correctly, yes it does. Testable, provable. So why should it change if we just change things to km for distance, or meters, or miles? You're proclaiming the math that works fine at 3000 cm stops working at 3000 miles. But the math doesn't care about the units. They don't come into this at all.
This means you need to present actual evidence that your claim is true. Not this red herring of "Oh, he never proved his concept of infinity so obviously he's wrong when I need him to be!" That's not evidence. That's your stubborn belief in order to keep a FE alive.
Alternatively, light doesn't move in straight lines, or space is curved (resulting in light not moving in precisely straight lines but in a different manner). In which case you still need evidence that it does. That's how this works.
This is burden of proof. You claim something doesn't work at a certain distance, or under certain conditions, when it works fine in all testable/known ones. Fine. Claim it all you like. But no one will take your claim seriously unless you can prove it, without resorting to logical fallacies or deflection. Give us cold hard numbers and data. Images, experiments, you name it. Prove your hypothesis. Until then it's nothing but words and fantasy.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
If Elucid's ideas about geometry (and perspective) were never demonstrated to apply at large scales, why does FET use it to determine how far away the Sun is?
In context of this topic:
I am also assuming this how the distance to the moon was calculated, as a tertiary search of the wiki for this information provided no results.
-
It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wDzUPIe.jpg)
It really doesn't seem like reversed to me. Put one person further away, and the red dot will be gone. This diagram really seems to be biased.
author=Tom Bishop link=topic=8653.msg139887#msg139887 date=1517606180]
It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wDzUPIe.jpg)
Elucid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?
Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.
-
Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.
Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.
-
Tom, do you even know what Euclidean geometry is? It's literally the geometry of straight lines, AKA the only geometry most people know about. Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet? You've got to be kidding me. What tests do you need? If you're saying that light doesn't travel in a straight line in space, then you're hopeless.
A test or experiment? You've got to be kidding me. Do you hear your ignorance? There are plenty of tests that show this is the case; triangles drawn out in a room, you not getting lost by walking around... Euclidean geometry assumes a space in which you can draw straight lines.
-
Tom, do you even know what Euclidean geometry is? It's literally the geometry of straight lines, AKA the only geometry most people know about. Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet? You've got to be kidding me. What tests do you need? If you're saying that light doesn't travel in a straight line in space, then you're hopeless.
A test or experiment? You've got to be kidding me. Do you hear your ignorance? There are plenty of tests that show this is the case; triangles drawn out in a room, you not getting lost by walking around... Euclidean geometry assumes a space in which you can draw straight lines.
We can't just assume how much bodies will rotate infinitely into the distance, or that bodies will descend forever without intersecting with the horizon. What evidence was ever produced to corroborate those assumptions? We need evidence, not leaps of logic.
-
Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?
You work with 12-foot long rulers ???
-
Tom, there is no leap of logic here. If you accept that we can draw straight lines in space (that is, the standard laws of geometry hold), then you have to accept the logical conclusions. You can't just say that math is wrong. Only the mathematical model may be wrong in that its assumptions may be flawed. But once you accept its assumptions, you cannot discredit its results. This is very simple. For example, if you say that money adds up and that I have $1 in my right hand and $1 in my left hand, you cannot just blindly assert that I don't have $2. Once you accepted I had $1 in both hands and that money is additive, you have to take the conclusions. It would be wrong (and delusional) to ask for proof that I have $2.
You're also being very vague and mathematically wrong with your terminology. What is "rotate infinitely" supposed to mean? Mathematically? What does "descend" mean? You haven't defined a coordinate system. Sloppiness with coordinate systems leads to a bunch of wrong answers.
Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?
You work with 12-foot long rulers ???
Totally. I like mine 12 times longer. They're extra huge.
-
We can't just assume how much bodies will rotate infinitely into the distance, or that bodies will descend forever without intersecting with the horizon. What evidence was ever produced to corroborate those assumptions? We need evidence, not leaps of logic.
That would work way better if you had any evidence at all for most of your claims about Flat Earth.
It's quite hard to argue with someone who doesn't regard logic as admissible.
As I said, shadows are your evidence. If you can find a way to produce the long shadows you see at sunset using an object and a torch in a dark room without laying the torch on the floor then I'd like to see it.
If the sun is where you claim it is at sunset then our shadows would be no more than twice our height. But they clearly are much longer.
That proves the light source is physically low in the sky, not just appearing to be by some magic perspective law which doesn't reflect reality in any way.
Shadow angle and length does not alter because of your "perspective". A physical light source emits photons at a certain angle and hits a physical object.
That angle depends on the physical relationship between the two objects.
-
Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?
You work with 12-foot long rulers ???
Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.
Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.
Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.
You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?
-
Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?
You work with 12-foot long rulers ???
Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.
Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.
Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.
You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?
What claim did I make is thread? Asking for evidence of your claims is a position of skepticism. The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. You need to prove your own claims that we live in a continuous universe.
We need emperical conclusions from direct evidence, not rationalized logic. Why do you think that the universe adheres to an ancient mathematical model that was never really tested to apply to perspective?
Once it can be SHOWN that perspective operates in a continuous fashion, THEN we can expect it to be that way.
-
Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?
You work with 12-foot long rulers ???
Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.
Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.
Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.
You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?
What claim did I make is thread? Asking for evidence of your claims is a position of skepticism. The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. You need to prove your own claims that we live in a continuous universe.
We need emperical conclusions from direct evidence, not rationalized logic. Why do you think that the universe adheres to an ancient mathematical model that was never really tested to apply to perspective?
Once it can be SHOWN that perspective operates in a continuous fashion, THEN we can expect it to be that way.
Hmm, I thought I made this pretty clear up above, but you have apparently chosen to simply ignore it. Your 'continuous universe' objection is a red herring here Tom. Please stop using it.
You have yet to provide any evidence for your claim that angles at 3000 miles will be different than angles at 3000 cm. This is your claim, because it's the only way the moon can show the same face no matter where you view it from, or what time of night you view it. There's no perspective here, there's just straight lines and math. If light doesn't travel in straight lines, great. Prove it. But if it DOES travel in straight lines, show your proof for trigonometry breaking down at long distances, contrary to everything currently known. Because the math doesn't care what the unit of measure is. There's no difference in a triangle with sides of 3000 cm and 6000 cm, and a triangle of 3000 miles and 6000 miles, as far as the math is concerned. Anything you do to one will show the same with the other, because units don't affect math on the numbers.
-
Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?
You work with 12-foot long rulers ???
Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.
Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.
Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.
You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?
What claim did I make is thread? Asking for evidence of your claims is a position of skepticism. The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. You need to prove your own claims that we live in a continuous universe.
We need emperical conclusions from direct evidence, not rationalized logic. Why do you think that the universe adheres to an ancient mathematical model that was never really tested to apply to perspective?
Once it can be SHOWN that perspective operates in a continuous fashion, THEN we can expect it to be that way.
You claimed Euclidean Geometry doesn't work (or is not empirically evidenced) on larger scales. You provide the proof. Because all over the world, mathematicians and physicists continue to use mathematical models. Let me say again, mathematics is universal. That's why you prove things in maths instead of verifying.
-
Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.
If you want to report a post that you think breaks, go ahead. An admin can review it if it is one of my posts.
However, you aren't a moderator, so refrain from attempting to moderate. Warned.
-
We see the sun rotating, we see other planets rotating. We can observe, for example, the great red spot of jupiter move across the surface, disappear, and reappear.
So this clearly means there is a face of objects in space that face us.
The moon keeps almost the same face to us at all times. An argument by symmetry means that you can't pick a face of the moon to shine at us without Euclidean geometry functioning properly.
You want a test that Euclidean geometry works over large distances, it's there. Planets have faces, we can observe them rotating, we can observe the sun rotating, so therefore not all of the surface of a sphere is visible from elsewhere.
You are the one with the weird claim that perspective functions in some way as to magically make this work for you, you don't even have a model for what that looks like and you ask us for proof?
-
This is a good time to point out that Tom doesn't actually believe the bit about needing to prove that geometry works at large scales. This is a series of posts from a previous thread, also about the moon:
What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.
That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?
Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?
Clearly not!
We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.
So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved? ???
You can't have it both ways, Tom.
-
It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/wDzUPIe.jpg)
It really doesn't seem like reversed to me. Put one person further away, and the red dot will be gone. This diagram really seems to be biased.
That's my point, when two people separated by any appreciable distance look at an object 3000 miles away, they really aren't going to be seeing the same side of the object. I'm not sure what you mean by the diagram being biased, so I drafted a scale and color coded version.
(https://i.imgur.com/XldviJX.jpg)
-
I was under the impression that you agreed with FET that the Sun & Moon are 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the Earth for the reasons explained in the wiki. The wiki seems to suggest that triangles work at these distances when it states "Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth." It also appears the diameters where calculated using the angular diameter and the 'known' distance (derived from from Euclid geometry).
[This isn't stated but I can see the math and since space travel isn't possibly, actually measuring the Moon isn't an option]
Tom, are you saying that the wiki (and FET) are incorrect about the height [and diameter] of these two objects and this is yet another case of 'The distance between X and Y is unknown'.
-
Elucid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?
Sorry You're mixing up a mathematical model/theory with real world observations. I you want to disproof a mathematical theory, you have to go to the math "playground", disproof axioms and theorems. Euclid's theorems have been affirmed though centuries.
What you could claim is, that this model does not match with the observation. Or in this case, that flat earth model does not follow Euclid's geometrie.
Please enlighten us, and introduce Your geometry model, which could be applied to flat earth model, or refine Your flat earth model, to match the the observation presented in this thread.
-
Before this thread was started, I failed to realize that the FE model should say that Southern Hemisphere people should see the dark side of the moon and the other side of the sun than Northern Hemisphere people do. I only thought about how it all works for a guy sitting in England not having to worry about what part of the moon someone in Siberia sees at the moment he is looking at the moon. What about someone in Chile?
So again it comes down to a model based on where the guy lived that started it and the model would be based on a South pole if Rowbotham had lived in Tasmania instead of England.
People in India who beat a person who accidentally bumps a cow with their cart have probably never heard of rodeos. People who think airlines circle their planes to support a round earth hoax cannot travel much.
-
It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.
What geometry Flat Earth movement uses to measure the Earth?
-
Euclid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?
Sorry You're mixing up a mathematical model/theory with real world observations. I you want to disproof a mathematical theory, you have to go to the math "playground", disproof axioms and theorems. Euclid's theorems have been affirmed though centuries.
What you could claim is, that this model does not match with the observation. Or in this case, that flat earth model does not follow Euclid's geometrie.
Please enlighten us, and introduce Your geometry model, which could be applied to flat earth model, or refine Your flat earth model, to match the the observation presented in this thread.
Tom in this case is essentially implying that we can't draw very long straight lines in arbitrary directions in the 3D space we live in. Of course, if the Earth is flat, then you can draw very long straight lines in at least a 2D subspace. So he's essentially implying that you can't draw lines straight "up." Seems legit. Of course, if you say that you can draw straight lines in arbitrary directions in space, then you have a Euclidean space and Euclidean geometry must work by standard mathematics, which is logically sound. It seems like Tom doesn't think mathematically/physically about the things he says; if you say that Euclidean geometry doesn't work at long distances, then you're saying space is curved. This is a prime example of debate in bad faith; Tom has tried to muddy the waters with something that, upon mathematical inspection, is obviously false, but he hasn't spent time to even consider the validity of what he's saying. In short, he's on a https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop).
-
Tom is suggesting Euclid geometry is not proven at distances of thousands of miles, but he's not suggesting an alternative, so all I can really do is guess at what he means and provide observational evidence that it actually does.
Support for Euclid geometry at a distance of 3000(ish) miles = The August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse:
If geometry and perspective work the way I understand [or at least imagine] Tom is suggesting, that some how distance observes both look up at the same surface of the Moon, the Eclipse should have been visible with 100% totality from, like, nearly the whole daylight zone of the Earth's surface. (Hint: It was not)
If geometry works the way Euclid indicates, the amount of totality should recede the further away from the path of totality that you are. (Hint: It does)
In my mind it looks something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/AdgFy9k.jpg)
[Note: I'm not trying to strawman you here, Tom, this is what I think you are saying about geometry.
If the FE perspective lines to the Moon are wrong, please provide us a diagram that can account for
A) All observers seeing the same side of the Moon
B) The same observers not seeing 100% totality of the Solar Eclipse
C) [optionally] Falsifies Euclid geometry at 3000(ish) miles]
-
Tom is suggesting Euclid geometry is not proven at distances of thousands of miles, but he's not suggesting an alternative, so all I can really do is guess at what he means and provide observational evidence that it actually does.
Support for Euclid geometry at a distance of 3000(ish) miles = The August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse:
If geometry and perspective work the way I understand [or at least imagine] Tom is suggesting, that some how distance observes both look up at the same surface of the Moon, the Eclipse should have been visible with 100% totality from, like, nearly the whole daylight zone of the Earth's surface. (Hint: It was not)
If geometry works the way Euclid indicates, the amount of totality should recede the further away from the path of totality that you are. (Hint: It does)
In my mind it looks something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/AdgFy9k.jpg)
[Note: I'm not trying to strawman you here, Tom, this is what I think you are saying about geometry.
If the FE perspective lines to the Moon are wrong, please provide us a diagram that can account for
A) All observers seeing the same side of the Moon
B) The same observers not seeing 100% totality of the Solar Eclipse
C) [optionally] Falsifies Euclid geometry at 3000(ish) miles]
Does light travel in straight lines?
-
Does light travel in straight lines?
Yes and No.
Light travels in straight lines, except when it is refracted as it passes obliquely through the interface between one medium and another or through a medium of varying density.
We could talk about gravitational lensing, but that light is still going straight, it's the space that's curved. Being, that it's hard to see curved space (cause it's all empty and stuff), it just appears that the light is bending.
Do, I think light bends in the way indicated by the 'FE Perspective' arcs the diagram? 4311 no! That would be ignoring the observations of the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse (or any solar eclipse for that matter), which seems to (IMHO) strongly support that :
A) Light travels in a decently straight line from the Moon to Earth (generally less than 10% refraction due to the atmosphere)
and
B) Euclid's ideas about geometry and perspective are valid at a distance of thousand's of miles. (Tom's initial rejection)
If it didn't, everybody on the illuminated portion of Earth would enjoy a 100% Total Solar Eclipse every time there was a solar eclipse. They don't [unfortunately?] because perspective works [good enough at least] the way it's supposed to at that distance. (Tom's rejection refuted) Which still leaves FET in the position of needing to provide a model that can have:
A) All observers seeing the same side of the Moon
and
B) The same observers not seeing 100% totality of the Solar Eclipse
-
This is a good time to point out that Tom doesn't actually believe the bit about needing to prove that geometry works at large scales. This is a series of posts from a previous thread, also about the moon:
What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.
That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?
Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?
Clearly not!
We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.
So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved? ???
You can't have it both ways, Tom.
It's very disappointing to see that Tom has not replied to this even though it was posted four days ago. I understand he is a busy man, but it becomes difficult to trust his writings when he declines to comment on his changing viewpoints.
-
Let's make an appointment for the next full moon in a few weeks: mark your calendars. (https://www.almanac.com/astronomy/moon/full)
Those of us who can take even a half-decent picture of the moon, please do so, and share your general location if you'd like, so we can triangulate.
This way we can get some homegrown photographic measurement added to this argument.
-
This is a good time to point out that Tom doesn't actually believe the bit about needing to prove that geometry works at large scales. This is a series of posts from a previous thread, also about the moon:
What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.
That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?
Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?
Clearly not!
We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.
So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved? ???
You can't have it both ways, Tom.
Euclidean Geometry says that straight lines appear to be straight from all angles, but the people in that thread are trying to argue around that in their explanation of why the moon phase does not point at the sun. Euclidean Geometry is an axiom that is considered a truth by those proponents. They are contradicting their geometric model, and they should be questioned on that.
The axioms of Euclidean Geometry can, of course, be questioned, as I have questioned them in this thread. Euclidean Geometry isn't validated because I questioned why some people were contradicting that assumed truth in another thread.
-
No.
Euclid may not be validated, but your position is invalidated. They weren't contradicting anything. You are contradicting yourself.
-
No.
Euclid may not be validated, but your position is invalidated. They weren't contradicting anything. You are contradicting yourself.
No one thought to question Euclidean Geometry in that thread when I was using their science against them, but that's not my problem.
Your beliefs are founded on the models of ancient philosophers. If those models cannot be justified then they should not be used.
-
Your beliefs are founded on the models of ancient philosophers. If those models cannot be justified then they should not be used.
And yours are founded on the ramblings of a bloke who thought the moon was translucent and has rightly been pretty much forgotten by history.
As has been explained to you many times, not all part of those ancient models have made it into the modern era. No-one now believes that everything is made up of 4 elements, for example.
Parts of the models the ancients used were shown to be bunk and have rightly superseded. Other parts of their model like Euclidean geometry have been shown to be sound so they persist.
-
No.
Euclid may not be validated, but your position is invalidated. They weren't contradicting anything. You are contradicting yourself.
No one thought to question Euclidean Geometry in that thread when I was using their science against them, but that's not my problem.
Your beliefs are founded on the models of ancient philosophers. If those models cannot be justified then they should not be used.
Because in that thread, as I recall, you didn't understand that your eyes were deceiving you. As I recall you were told repeatedly to hold up an actual ruler (or a piece of string I think was the actual item suggested) and it would show no problems with the location of the sun to the moon. You refused. You also failed to understand the curved nature of the sky from the perspective of someone on Earth. This is just another example of you arguing from a position where you lack crucial knowledge on a subject, but talk as though you don't.
-
Your beliefs are founded on the models of ancient philosophers. If those models cannot be justified then they should not be used.
This will get off topic fast, so I just started a new thread to pursue this more specifically.
My favorite definition of belief is 'acceptance that something is true.' I accept the truth of space travel, for example, so it is fair to say that I believe Yuri Gargarin and John Glenn went into orbit, and that the Curiosity rover is up on Mars. These beliefs have nothing to do with ancient philosophy. I accept the truth that the sun is 93 million miles away, and the moon 240k miles away, and the heliocentric model that causes the phases of the moon and other observations reviewed in this thread. This model certainly is justified, to say the least.
It is the flat Earth model that cannot be justified. You should abandon it, by your own standards of evidence.
-
Tom, I think you missed you the part of this thread where I provided empirical observational evidence that Euclid's ideas of geometry and perspective are functional at a distance of 3000 miles.
The observable fact that the percentage of totality of a solar eclipse is proportional to the distance from the path totality it is observed from, fully supports Euclid geometry and perspective. It shows that angle the eclipse being observed from is not the same for all observers. It looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8kdQUcz.jpg)
The moon appears to be observed from basically the same angle, that is the same side is presented, to all observers regardless of the distance of separation between them.
If the angle the eclipse is observed at is NOT the same for all observers, how can the angle the moon is observed at BE the same for all observers???
Please review the diagram and explain if geometry and perspective doesn't work for points thousands of miles distant from each other:
How is it that distant observers can all look up and observe the moon surfaces at the same angle but at the same exact moment in time observe that moon occlude the sun at different angles proportional to their distance from a median line extended from the center of the solar object, through the center of the lunar object and terminating on the ground?
-
The moon looks "upside down" to those in the southern hemisphere in comparison to those who live in the northern hemisphere. This simple fact would appear to break the current flat earth orbit model.
Why? If the moon path on a FE travels in concentric circles and fluctuates between those concentric paths, that would put the moon further outwards from dead center at times and further inwards at time, depending where upon the FE you are standing.
As an example... look at the moon... then turn your back to the moon and lean backwards until you are looking at the moon with your head upside down. What I mean is that the further inwards to dead center of FE you are, you must look up and away from FE dead center to view the moon. Someone further out from FE dead center is facing you and looking up and inwards towards FE dead center and up at the same thing.