The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Buran on February 20, 2018, 09:18:55 PM
-
Im trying to use the zetetic method to discover for myself the shape of the earth. Ok, so starting point is that the earth looks flat. Occams razor would lead to the conclusion from only this information that the earth is flat. Ok, so far so good. Then, I watch a sunset and I see a bright disc disappear below the horizon. Again, Occams razor leads to the conclusion that the sun is moving below the horizon. But the wiki says it moves above the earth at all times.
So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.
Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.
-
Im trying to use the zetetic method to discover for myself the shape of the earth. Ok, so starting point is that the earth looks flat. Occams razor would lead to the conclusion from only this information that the earth is flat. Ok, so far so good. Then, I watch a sunset and I see a bright disc disappear below the horizon. Again, Occams razor leads to the conclusion that the sun is moving below the horizon. But the wiki says it moves above the earth at all times.
Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?
Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.
So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.
Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.
Here is an experiment:
Look out at the world and notice that perspective lines will meet in the distance. Straight lengths of railroad tracks will eventually seem to meet each other, as an example. The railroad tracks appear to meet a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
From observations such as the above we can conclude that perspective lines will meet in the finite distance (even if the objects do not physically meet). The sun will therefore eventually meet the horizon, a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as predicted by some mathematical models. Experience trumps an ancient mathematical model of a continuous universe. It is experience and observation which tells us how perspective works, not a theory.
-
So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.
Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.
Here is an experiment:
Look out at the world and notice that perspective lines will meet in the distance. Straight lengths of railroad tracks will eventually seem to meet each other, as an example. The railroad tracks appear to meet a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
From observations such as the above we can conclude that perspective lines will meet in the finite distance (even if the objects do not physically meet). The sun will therefore eventually meet the horizon, a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as predicted by some mathematical models. Experience and trumps an ancient mathematical model of a continuous universe. It is experience and observation which tells us how perspective works, not a theory.
You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.
To be slightly more on topic, once again. Show the proof that light, perspective, what have you functions differently at 3000 miles as compared to 3000 cm, WITHOUT the evidence relying upon the unproven idea of a flat Earth. Perspective is a device to describe a 3D world upon a 2D surface. It has no effect upon the physical relationship between objects.
-
You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.
I don't see where your argument that things don't physically meet takes us. We know that perspective does not cause things to physically meet. That is not the argument. The perspective lines of a railroad track merge together, just as the sun merges into the earth. No one is saying that the sun is crashing into the earth, and no one is saying that the train tracks physically touch. The perspective lines merge together.
What does the "they don't physically meet" argument have anything to do with it? Where are we saying that the sun touches the earth?
The perspective lines of railroad tracks merge at a FINITE distance. The conclusion to this is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance. Therefore it will not take an infinite distance for the sun to reach the horizon.
-
Knowing now, how perspective works; that the perspective lines will merge a finite distance away, we now move on to what is actually blocking the sun at the horizon. We know that it can get there, but what blocks the light? According to Samuel Birley Rowbotham it is the small imperfections on the earth's surface that blocks the sun. The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the earth near the horizon, such as a series of ocean waves, can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. That area is the solid line of built up ocean waves when you look out at the ocean's horizon, or the imperfections of the land when on land. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit
p. 275
of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig97.jpg)
FIG. 97.
A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.
This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.
-
Because this will eventually come up, as per the question of why the sun does not shrink in size if it is disappearing to perspective, that may be answered by this article in our Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset).
What I have written and linked above is how sunset works in Earth Not a Globe, and in the current Flat Earth model. There are no good rebuttals to this, as the basic tenets to the workings of perspective are backed up by experience and observation.
What we tend to get are some complaints about how perspective doesn't cause objects to REALLY meet, but again, no one is claiming that the sun is crashing into the earth. Anyone can see that this argument is not really valid when put into context.
Other rebuttals involve an attempt at using math to show that the sun would never reach the horizon; but anyone who uses this math would need to show that perspective operates according to the axioms of that continuous mathematical model, as opposed to operating according to what is experienced. The debater is unable to show or cite anything showing perspective to work in that way; and so, since this argument is made without evidence, it is discarded without evidence.
-
Knowing now, how perspective works; that the perspective lines will merge a finite distance away, we now move on to what is actually blocking the sun at the horizon. We know that it can get there, but what blocks the light? According to Samuel Birley Rowbotham it is the small imperfections on the earth's surface that blocks the sun. The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the earth near the horizon, such as a series of ocean waves, can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. That area is the solid line of built up ocean waves when you look out at the ocean's horizon, or the imperfections of the land when on land. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit
p. 275
of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig97.jpg)
FIG. 97.
A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.
This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.
You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.
I don't see where your argument that things don't physically meet takes us. We know that perspective does not cause things to physically meet. That is not the argument. The perspective lines of a railroad track merge together, just as the sun merges into the earth. No one is saying that the sun is crashing into the earth, and no one is saying that the train tracks physically touch. They perspective lines merge together.
What does the "they don't physically meet" argument have anything to do with it? Where are we saying that the sun touches the earth?
The perspective lines merge in railroad tracks, at a FINITE distance. The conclusion to this is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance. Therefore it will not take an infinite distance for the sun to reach the horizon.
Very well said and thought out response.
-
Very well said and thought out response.
Please refrain from "me too" type responses. If you want to post in the upper for, then at least contribute something to the topic/discussion.
-
You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.
I don't see where your argument that things don't physically meet takes us. We know that perspective does not cause things to physically meet. That is not the argument. The perspective lines of a railroad track merge together, just as the sun merges into the earth. No one is saying that the sun is crashing into the earth, and no one is saying that the train tracks physically touch. They perspective lines merge together.
What does the "they don't physically meet" argument have anything to do with it? Where are we saying that the sun touches the earth?
The perspective lines merge in railroad tracks, at a FINITE distance. The conclusion to this is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance. Therefore it will not take an infinite distance for the sun to reach the horizon.
Exactly! The sun doesn't physically reach the ground. That's literally all the math tells us. Geometry doesn't deal with perspective until you ask it to. At which point it does a fine job, as evidenced by the thousands of video games that take place in first and third person. Perspective isn't just an art, in many ways it's a science. We have rules and we know how things work, and we can show this knowledge with video games. Claiming the math says the perspective lines won't meet is lying. That's what I'm saying. So stop it.
Correct, they appear to meet at a finite distance. One which we can easily compute and figure out. The distances involved with your sun don't meet the criteria for getting the sun to the point it can vanish behind an object on the horizon, or even one close to you. Unless of course you invoke bendy light. YOU claim geometry that works to accurately describe relationships at 3000 cm stops working at 3000 miles, despite the math not caring what the units of measure are in use. The burden of proof here is on you, and once again you must do it without invoking something that relies upon the unproven claim of a flat Earth.
Unless you insist I'm not going to touch on your ENaG comments. I've pointed out in numerous other threads that he doesn't come close to the standard of evidence you demand of anyone presenting a RE idea on these forums, so expecting people to take him at face value when you yourself would not if he were a RE proponent is at best pointless, at worst hypocritical.
-
Im trying to use the zetetic method to discover for myself the shape of the earth. Ok, so starting point is that the earth looks flat. Occams razor would lead to the conclusion from only this information that the earth is flat. Ok, so far so good. Then, I watch a sunset and I see a bright disc disappear below the horizon. Again, Occams razor leads to the conclusion that the sun is moving below the horizon. But the wiki says it moves above the earth at all times.
So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.
Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.
Wouldn't you have to shrink your eyes as well and your site of view or am I missing something here ?
-
Experience trumps an ancient mathematical model of a continuous universe. It is experience and observation which tells us how perspective works, not a theory.
This is so true. Younger folks don't have any experience as us older folks do.
Trust the gut comes with age.
Observation of your own persons life journey will take you way father then a text book will.
A good experiment to do with mirrors to test perspective is take three of them in a triangle all facing inwards
and then stick your head in the middle and look at infinite and beyond.
-
Because this will eventually come up, as per the question of why the sun does not shrink in size if it is disappearing to perspective, that may be answered by this article in our Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset).
What I have written and linked above is how sunset works in Earth Not a Globe, and in the current Flat Earth model. There are no good rebuttals to this, as the basic tenets to the workings of perspective are backed up by experience and observation.
What we tend to get are some complaints about how perspective doesn't cause objects to REALLY meet, but again, no one is claiming that the sun is crashing into the earth. Anyone can see that this argument is not really valid when put into context.
Other rebuttals involve an attempt at using math to show that the sun would never reach the horizon; but anyone who uses this math would need to show that perspective operates according to the axioms of that continuous mathematical model, as opposed to operating according to what is experienced. The debater is unable to show or cite anything showing perspective to work in that way; and so, since this argument is made without evidence, it is discarded without evidence.
Ok, work with me here, because I'm going to try my best to understand how this works.
Now, I understand that prespective lines eventually meet. However, the sun seems to be too high to meet with the "horizon". That's assuming that perspective works the same over longer distances. What I think you're trying to say is that there is a physical limit to perspective. Because, if I look down railroad tracks with just my eyes, they eventually meet at a specific spot. But if I used a telescope, that would allow me to see farther thus pushing my perspective limit farther. But if I used a telescope on the setting sun it does not bring it into view.
So, how would I prove that it is indeed perpective that changes over longer distances?
EDIT:
I realized I made an assumption without evidence. I said that using a telescope on a setting sun cannot bring it back into view. I actually have not tried this.
So, for my next experiment, I will go to the beach at sundown and wait for the moment that the sun is no longer visible and then use a 200x zoom telescopen to see if I can bring it back into view. Does this sound like a fair experiment? Why or why not?
EDIT2:
I need to clarify I'm not arguing against how perspective works. However, how do we know it is perspective that is causing the effect we see at sundown? What experiments have been carried out at that kind of distance to prove it is convergence of perspective lines and not simply the sun going below the earth? Some ancient people's actually thought the sun went into the earth. How do we know this is wrong?
EDIT
If perspective lines do indeed behave in the way that you make it sound, wouldn't that make it impossible to get an accurate distance or size of the sun?
-
The sun might merge into the earth for one person but for another it is high in the sky and for another is just rising. Just do some observations and measurements.
-
Wouldn't you have to shrink your eyes as well and your site of view or am I missing something here ?
That did cross my mind, but wouldn't using a telescope in real life make up for my eyeball in the experiment? Besides, I think the change in atmosphere density is the bigger issue not accounted for.
-
Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?
If you're looking out to sea on a clear day what you see is the sun slowly dropping in the sky until the bottom of it appears to touch the water and then the disc of the sun slowly sinks behind the horizon.
Now, you can say that "behind" is a rationalisation but in every other experience of observing things, that is what is happening. If you look along the top of a table and someone drops a small ball from above the far edge of the table to below it then you see the ball "set", like a sunset. Rotate the ball above the plane of the table as in your sun model and you will be able to see it all the time, it will just get bigger and smaller.
And note, a table is flat. Sunset doesn't necessarily prove a globe earth, it could occur on a flat earth. But then the sun would be below the plane of the earth and it would be dark everywhere.
Long shadows prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadow length does not depend on perspective.
Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.
I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.
Look out at the world and notice that perspective lines will meet in the distance. Straight lengths of railroad tracks will eventually seem to meet each other, as an example. The railroad tracks appear to meet a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
Correct, but I've highlighted the flaw in your thinking. They only appear to meet and they do so because of the limitation in your vision. If you zoom in you will still see a gap between the tracks because there IS a gap between them.
From observations such as the above we can conclude that perspective lines will meet in the finite distance (even if the objects do not physically meet). The sun will therefore eventually meet the horizon, a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as predicted by some mathematical models.
Again, appear to. Not actually. All perspective does is make distant objects smaller and distances between them seem shorter. Zooming in will make them more distinct and the gaps apparent. Perspective doesn't make items "merge", but when they are far enough away they will become indistinguishable. That is a limit of your vision. So just like railway tracks if you zoomed in on a sunset you should be able to just make out the THREE THOUSAND MILE GAP between the earth and the sun.
If you had two railway tracks 3000 miles apart are you suggesting that the gap between them would be indistinguishable at 6000 miles away?
There is no way that perspective can explain the sun intersecting the horizon. And even if you think it can somehow, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadows angle and length depend on the physical relationship between light source and object.
And if it is not crashing into the earth - I agree it isn't - then it must be going below the earth (from your point of view)
On a flat earth that would mean it would then be night everywhere, which is not what we observe.
On a spinning globe it would mean it gets dark where you are but people living further round the curve of the earth would be in daylight which is what we observe.
I don't know why you're still citing Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent and whose proofs are pretty much always "This is what I saw". If a build up of waves is blocking things, I've seen you claim this to explain how distant buildings are occluded by the sea, then how does the "Bishop Experiment" work then? Why are waves not blocking your view of the distant beach? You can't have it both ways.
-
Knowing now, how perspective works; that the perspective lines will merge a finite distance away, we now move on to what is actually blocking the sun at the horizon. We know that it can get there, but what blocks the light? According to Samuel Birley Rowbotham it is the small imperfections on the earth's surface that blocks the sun. The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the earth near the horizon, such as a series of ocean waves, can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. That area is the solid line of built up ocean waves when you look out at the ocean's horizon, or the imperfections of the land when on land. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit
p. 275
of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig97.jpg)
FIG. 97.
A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.
This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.
I have a HUGE problem with the imperfections on the earth type explanation. Firstly, if you were to stand on a hill next to an ocean facing the setting sun, it would set. According to the theory, the imperfections on the Earth should block the sun. But when there is no imperfection to block it, where does the sun go?
You may argue that the sea will block the sun, but "water is always flat" is one of the arguments I always see for the FET. So again, where will the sun go? Are there massive waves hundreds of meters high out there? Has the government built some wall to 'hide the truth'?
Even if this theory were true, I believe from my own lived experiences that night would not be possible. Get a lamp or light source, for example, and put it on a table. If you get yourself below the table and look the opposite direction, the light will still shine on the wall or object. Even in the diagram shown, from D to H the sun would illuminate that ground. I know from experience that a setting sun isn't a black line travelling up a hill, its a gradual change.
-
Now, I understand that prespective lines eventually meet. However, the sun seems to be too high to meet with the "horizon". That's assuming that perspective works the same over longer distances. What I think you're trying to say is that there is a physical limit to perspective. Because, if I look down railroad tracks with just my eyes, they eventually meet at a specific spot. But if I used a telescope, that would allow me to see farther thus pushing my perspective limit farther. But if I used a telescope on the setting sun it does not bring it into view.
That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.
So, how would I prove that it is indeed perpective that changes over longer distances?
The books Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and the Cellular Cosmogony all have numerous references to half-sunken ships and other objects that are restored when viewed with a telescope and when the water is calm. Youtube Flat Earthers have also shown that the effect can be restored with a telescope.
In instances where the water is greatly disturbed, the sinking ship effect is not restorable. This is because masses at the horizon line can provide an area which more distant objects can shrink behind -- such as how a dime can obscure an elephant.
So, for my next experiment, I will go to the beach at sundown and wait for the moment that the sun is no longer visible and then use a 200x zoom telescopen to see if I can bring it back into view. Does this sound like a fair experiment? Why or why not?
You would have to make sure that there is nothing on the horizon for the distance between you and the sun at sunset. Since this is a long length of land to control, the restoration of the sun may not be possible.
According to our literature, the restoration of closer objects is possible if the surface of the waters is calm. By replicating those experiments and showing that the only modification is the disturbance of the water that causes things to disappear, the conclusion that perspective is the cause for things to merge into the horizon at a finite distance is stronger.
EDIT2:
I need to clarify I'm not arguing against how perspective works. However, how do we know it is perspective that is causing the effect we see at sundown? What experiments have been carried out at that kind of distance to prove it is convergence of perspective lines and not simply the sun going below the earth? Some ancient people's actually thought the sun went into the earth. How do we know this is wrong?
Earth Not a Globe and other works conduct numerous experiments with perspective, showing that objects become obscured when they are distant, and are restored with a telescope, showing the cause not to be a physical blockage. When the surface is disturbed those distant objects are not restorable. The conclusions from these experiments suggests that the mechanism is what I have described.
If perspective lines do indeed behave in the way that you make it sound, wouldn't that make it impossible to get an accurate distance or size of the sun?
It's not impossible to get a distance, we would just need to know more about how perspective operates -- what the descent in perspective means and how it related to distance. Some of the math in our literature for the sun's distance is, consequently, not valid if we are questioning the axioms of the Ancient Greek continuous universe model.
-
Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.
I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.
The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object. The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.
Correct, but I've highlighted the flaw in your thinking. They only appear to meet and they do so because of the limitation in your vision. If you zoom in you will still see a gap between the tracks because there IS a gap between them.
Yes, we agree with the idea that the perspective lines can be un-merged with telescopic zoom, and point to the experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored on calm bodies of water by viewing the scene with a telescope.
There is no way that perspective can explain the sun intersecting the horizon. And even if you think it can somehow, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadows angle and length depend on the physical relationship between light source and object.
But the sun is low in the sky -- due to perspective. Long shadows on the earth only tell us how close an object is to the earth's horizon.
If a build up of waves is blocking things, I've seen you claim this to explain how distant buildings are occluded by the sea, then how does the "Bishop Experiment" work then? Why are waves not blocking your view of the distant beach? You can't have it both ways.
I see you keep repeating this, but you have not thought out your criticism all the way through. For the beach to be obscured by waves on the horizon, the beach would have to be on the horizon.
-
I have a HUGE problem with the imperfections on the earth type explanation. Firstly, if you were to stand on a hill next to an ocean facing the setting sun, it would set. According to the theory, the imperfections on the Earth should block the sun. But when there is no imperfection to block it, where does the sun go?
You may argue that the sea will block the sun, but "water is always flat" is one of the arguments I always see for the FET. So again, where will the sun go? Are there massive waves hundreds of meters high out there? Has the government built some wall to 'hide the truth'?
This is because in perspective the horizon (the point where the perspective lines meet) is always at eye level, even from the top of a mountain.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level
Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.
-
I have a HUGE problem with the imperfections on the earth type explanation. Firstly, if you were to stand on a hill next to an ocean facing the setting sun, it would set. According to the theory, the imperfections on the Earth should block the sun. But when there is no imperfection to block it, where does the sun go?
You may argue that the sea will block the sun, but "water is always flat" is one of the arguments I always see for the FET. So again, where will the sun go? Are there massive waves hundreds of meters high out there? Has the government built some wall to 'hide the truth'?
This is because in perspective the horizon (the point where the perspective lines meet) is always at eye level, even from the top of a mountain.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level
Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.
Please define 'eye level'.
-
Thanks for the detailed reply Tom! That definitely cleared some things up for me. I know enough now to conduct an experiment on this.
-
Thanks for the detailed reply Tom! That definitely cleared some things up for me. I know enough now to conduct an experiment on this.
The use of a term like eye level with no definition shows a lack of knowledge.
-
If I lie flat on my face, 'eye level' doesn't mean very much.
It is entirely dependent on height, altitude, and what direction one happens to be looking. The horizon doesn't interact with 'eye level' even the slightest bit; it does not rise to meet the eye, never has, and never will. If you are looking directly at the horizon, you are looking slightly down. (https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/)
-
I think by eye level he means the horizon is...horizontal.
So the height doesn't matter, the horizon is always straight in front of you.
Except it isn't. It's just the dip is quite small and hard to see, certainly at most normal heights.
The horizon dips more as you get higher, you can see further away when you get higher - the horizon is further away.
Which proves we live on a globe.
EDIT: Some measurements of horizon dip are given here, with some details about how to measure it
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/
As can be seen, the dip is very hard to discern at "normal" altitudes, even from a plane.
-
Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.
I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.
The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object. The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.
I see. Well, no it isn't. The horizon is simply where the earth meets the sky.
To be honest, I don't know what a horizon would look like on a flat earth.
On a globe it's a sharp line when looking out to sea because the earth curves away from you. Look along the edge of a ball - sharp line where the surface curves away from you.
That's why the horizon is further away when you get higher and the horizon line dips further below eye level with height.
These are observable and measurable and prove we live on a globe.
I guess a good way to prove that the horizon is not just where perspective lines meet would be to sail two ships maybe a mile or two apart away from you. Before they dip over the horizon they should still be a noticeable distance apart. This is an experiment you could probably organise as you live near the ocean.
If perspective points met at the horizon then the horizon would be a dot, not a line. If the horizon is what you say then why do only the horizontal lines meet and not the vertical? Do you actually think that horizontal perspective lines work differently to vertical perspective lines?
To respond to your other points:
All zoom does is make things bigger. So if a ship is truly half sunken then no amount of zoom will restore it. If the ship is not over the horizon but it's simply too far to see distinctly then optical zoom will make it clearer, that's all optical zoom does. It's not about "unmerging" perspective lines. They aren't merged in the first place any more than distant train tracks are merged. It's just that the limitations of your eye makes them harder to distinguish.
Once more: Shadow length and angle are determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object. Not your or anyone else's perspective. Otherwise in your "row of lamps" thought experiment I as an observer from the side would see the shadow cast downwards as I can see the light is physically above your hand, you with your raised hand would see it cast upwards because of your perspective. That is not what is observed. The shadow is cast downwards for both people.
Again, do an experiment with a torch in a dark room. The only way you can cast long shadows is if the torch is PHYSICALLY near the ground.
At a distance of 6000 miles you are seriously suggestion that a gap of THREE THOUSAND MILES can't be seen?
For the beach to be obscured by waves then a close wave would simply have to be taller in apparent size than the people on the beach's apparent size. And I think we both agree that things get smaller with distance. As you keep saying, a dime can hide an elephant. But the only way a dime can hide an elephant if you're looking at ground level is the dime to be VERY close and the elephant far away. So actually closer waves are more likely to hide the distant beach than ones on the horizon which will be too small to discern - that's why the horizon at sea looks flat, yes there are waves but they are too small at that distance to notice.
So if you're 20 inches above the water then close waves are pretty likely to block distant beach or building unless you're higher than them - the video posted of the distant building being hidden by the curve of the earth was clearly done from above the waves level.
I've yet to see documentary proof of your experiment. You don't take "this is what I observed" as good enough evidence from anyone else (apart from Rowbotham, strangely, who as I may have mentioned thought the moon was translucent which some would think invalidates his other "proofs".
-
Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.
I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.
The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object. The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.
I see. Well, no it isn't. The horizon is simply where the earth meets the sky.
To be honest, I don't know what a horizon would look like on a flat earth.
On a globe it's a sharp line when looking out to sea because the earth curves away from you. Look along the edge of a ball - sharp line where the surface curves away from you.
That's why the horizon is further away when you get higher and the horizon line dips further below eye level with height.
These are observable and measurable and prove we live on a globe.
I guess a good way to prove that the horizon is not just where perspective lines meet would be to sail two ships maybe a mile or two apart away from you. Before they dip over the horizon they should still be a noticeable distance apart. This is an experiment you could probably organise as you live near the ocean.
If perspective points met at the horizon then the horizon would be a dot, not a line. If the horizon is what you say then why do only the horizontal lines meet and not the vertical? Do you actually think that horizontal perspective lines work differently to vertical perspective lines?
To respond to your other points:
All zoom does is make things bigger. So if a ship is truly half sunken then no amount of zoom will restore it. If the ship is not over the horizon but it's simply too far to see distinctly then optical zoom will make it clearer, that's all optical zoom does. It's not about "unmerging" perspective lines. They aren't merged in the first place any more than distant train tracks are merged. It's just that the limitations of your eye makes them harder to distinguish.
Once more: Shadow length and angle are determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object. Not your or anyone else's perspective. Otherwise in your "row of lamps" thought experiment I as an observer from the side would see the shadow cast downwards as I can see the light is physically above your hand, you with your raised hand would see it cast upwards because of your perspective. That is not what is observed. The shadow is cast downwards for both people.
Again, do an experiment with a torch in a dark room. The only way you can cast long shadows is if the torch is PHYSICALLY near the ground.
At a distance of 6000 miles you are seriously suggestion that a gap of THREE THOUSAND MILES can't be seen?
For the beach to be obscured by waves then a close wave would simply have to be taller in apparent size than the people on the beach's apparent size. And I think we both agree that things get smaller with distance. As you keep saying, a dime can hide an elephant. But the only way a dime can hide an elephant if you're looking at ground level is the dime to be VERY close and the elephant far away. So actually closer waves are more likely to hide the distant beach than ones on the horizon which will be too small to discern - that's why the horizon at sea looks flat, yes there are waves but they are too small at that distance to notice.
So if you're 20 inches above the water then close waves are pretty likely to block distant beach or building unless you're higher than them - the video posted of the distant building being hidden by the curve of the earth was clearly done from above the waves level.
I've yet to see documentary proof of your experiment. You don't take "this is what I observed" as good enough evidence from anyone else (apart from Rowbotham, strangely, who as I may have mentioned thought the moon was translucent which some would think invalidates his other "proofs".
From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.
-
Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.
I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.
The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object. The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.
I see. Well, no it isn't. The horizon is simply where the earth meets the sky.
To be honest, I don't know what a horizon would look like on a flat earth.
On a globe it's a sharp line when looking out to sea because the earth curves away from you. Look along the edge of a ball - sharp line where the surface curves away from you.
That's why the horizon is further away when you get higher and the horizon line dips further below eye level with height.
These are observable and measurable and prove we live on a globe.
I guess a good way to prove that the horizon is not just where perspective lines meet would be to sail two ships maybe a mile or two apart away from you. Before they dip over the horizon they should still be a noticeable distance apart. This is an experiment you could probably organise as you live near the ocean.
If perspective points met at the horizon then the horizon would be a dot, not a line. If the horizon is what you say then why do only the horizontal lines meet and not the vertical? Do you actually think that horizontal perspective lines work differently to vertical perspective lines?
To respond to your other points:
All zoom does is make things bigger. So if a ship is truly half sunken then no amount of zoom will restore it. If the ship is not over the horizon but it's simply too far to see distinctly then optical zoom will make it clearer, that's all optical zoom does. It's not about "unmerging" perspective lines. They aren't merged in the first place any more than distant train tracks are merged. It's just that the limitations of your eye makes them harder to distinguish.
Once more: Shadow length and angle are determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object. Not your or anyone else's perspective. Otherwise in your "row of lamps" thought experiment I as an observer from the side would see the shadow cast downwards as I can see the light is physically above your hand, you with your raised hand would see it cast upwards because of your perspective. That is not what is observed. The shadow is cast downwards for both people.
Again, do an experiment with a torch in a dark room. The only way you can cast long shadows is if the torch is PHYSICALLY near the ground.
At a distance of 6000 miles you are seriously suggestion that a gap of THREE THOUSAND MILES can't be seen?
For the beach to be obscured by waves then a close wave would simply have to be taller in apparent size than the people on the beach's apparent size. And I think we both agree that things get smaller with distance. As you keep saying, a dime can hide an elephant. But the only way a dime can hide an elephant if you're looking at ground level is the dime to be VERY close and the elephant far away. So actually closer waves are more likely to hide the distant beach than ones on the horizon which will be too small to discern - that's why the horizon at sea looks flat, yes there are waves but they are too small at that distance to notice.
So if you're 20 inches above the water then close waves are pretty likely to block distant beach or building unless you're higher than them - the video posted of the distant building being hidden by the curve of the earth was clearly done from above the waves level.
I've yet to see documentary proof of your experiment. You don't take "this is what I observed" as good enough evidence from anyone else (apart from Rowbotham, strangely, who as I may have mentioned thought the moon was translucent which some would think invalidates his other "proofs".
From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.
Perspective does not 'behave'. Tom has his very own use of the word.
-
From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.
The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.
-
From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.
The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.
Or at any other distance. That isn't how perspective works and it isn't what the horizon is.
I have suggested an experiment you can do to prove that. Get a couple of friends with boats, get them sail away from the shore.
You will notice that they are a discernible distance apart when they disappear over the horizon.
I've also suggested an experiment to help you understand how long shadows can be cast only by a light source PHYSICALLY low to the ground.
And I've suggested a few times doing some observations of the sun or moon and triangulating to prove they are as close as you suppose.
I look forward to your results.
-
From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.
The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.
Or at any other distance. That isn't how perspective works and it isn't what the horizon is.
I have suggested an experiment you can do to prove that. Get a couple of friends with boats, get them sail away from the shore.
You will notice that they are a discernible distance apart when they disappear over the horizon.
I've also suggested an experiment to help you understand how long shadows can be cast only by a light source PHYSICALLY low to the ground.
And I've suggested a few times doing some observations of the sun or moon and triangulating to prove they are as close as you suppose.
I look forward to your results.
Unfortunately it's been nothing but cloudy days so I haven't been able to watch the sunset. And I hear you on the shadows, but one thing at a time.
I do have another question for Tom regarding the shape the sun takes as it moves across the sky. The sun has the appearance of a big ball or cirole facing the earth. If it is a ball, then orientation won't change how it to appears. If its a spotlight, it looks as if it must be facing not just at the earth, but at me at all times. Using a flashlight in the experiment I conducted the light began to take an eliptical shape as it moved away, gradually looking like someone shutting their eye. The sun does no such thing until right before it disappears. It seems to me that somehow this should be able to be recreated at shorter distances than thousands of miles. The wiki talks about how th atmosphere can magnify objects, but how does this affect it's shape?
-
From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.
The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.
That makes no sense at all. Please describe without the incorrect use of the word perspective.
-
From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.
The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.
Or at any other distance. That isn't how perspective works and it isn't what the horizon is.
I have suggested an experiment you can do to prove that. Get a couple of friends with boats, get them sail away from the shore.
You will notice that they are a discernible distance apart when they disappear over the horizon.
I've also suggested an experiment to help you understand how long shadows can be cast only by a light source PHYSICALLY low to the ground.
And I've suggested a few times doing some observations of the sun or moon and triangulating to prove they are as close as you suppose.
I look forward to your results.
Unfortunately it's been nothing but cloudy days so I haven't been able to watch the sunset. And I hear you on the shadows, but one thing at a time.
I do have another question for Tom regarding the shape the sun takes as it moves across the sky. The sun has the appearance of a big ball or cirole facing the earth. If it is a ball, then orientation won't change how it to appears. If its a spotlight, it looks as if it must be facing not just at the earth, but at me at all times. Using a flashlight in the experiment I conducted the light began to take an eliptical shape as it moved away, gradually looking like someone shutting their eye. The sun does no such thing until right before it disappears. It seems to me that somehow this should be able to be recreated at shorter distances than thousands of miles. The wiki talks about how th atmosphere can magnify objects, but how does this affect it's shape?
The sun is a sphere. "Spotlight" refers to the spot-of-light the sun's light casts upon the earth, and is often misinterpreted to mean that the sun is non-spherical or only shines light in one direction.
-
I do have another question for Tom regarding the shape the sun takes as it moves across the sky. The sun has the appearance of a big ball or cirole facing the earth. If it is a ball, then orientation won't change how it to appears. If its a spotlight, it looks as if it must be facing not just at the earth, but at me at all times. Using a flashlight in the experiment I conducted the light began to take an eliptical shape as it moved away, gradually looking like someone shutting their eye. The sun does no such thing until right before it disappears. It seems to me that somehow this should be able to be recreated at shorter distances than thousands of miles. The wiki talks about how th atmosphere can magnify objects, but how does this affect it's shape?
Also one can observe sunspots with a simple and cheap #14 welding lens (or other sun filter) and some compact binoculars, and notice that those too will also remain oriented on your position throughout the day. How does the same face of a sphere remain facing you all day? (Or just observe the moon and see the same thing)
That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.
How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring? Do you have a link to one? A ship, mountain, or structure that is visibly obscured from the bottom up at low magnification, and rising up to reveal the obscured portions as magnification is increased.
-
That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.
How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?
I did cite that there were video examples. Why did you cut it out of my quote?
-
That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.
How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?
I did cite that there were video examples. Why did you cut it out of my quote?
I didn't feel like quoting the entire post. Here you go then.
Youtube Flat Earthers have also shown that the effect can be restored with a telescope.
I don't believe there are any youtube videos of a ship, mountain, structure, etc, shown at low magnification to be partially obscured from the bottom up, and rising up to full unobstructed height (defined dimensions of the object changing as seen between the low vs high zoom) as magnification is increased.
I've never seen one. Do you have a link?
-
That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.
How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?
I did cite that there were video examples. Why did you cut it out of my quote?
I didn't feel like quoting the entire post. Here you go then.
Youtube Flat Earthers have also shown that the effect can be restored with a telescope.
I don't believe there are any youtube videos of a ship, mountain, structure, etc, shown at low magnification to be partially obscured from the bottom up, and rising up to full unobstructed height (defined dimensions of the object changing as seen between the low vs high zoom) as magnification is increased.
I've never seen one. Do you have a link?
We are rebuilding our library and are considering the inclusion of such video examples. Until then you can search for one of the many ship restoration videos on Youtube in your research.
-
That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.
How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?
I did cite that there were video examples. Why did you cut it out of my quote?
I didn't feel like quoting the entire post. Here you go then.
Youtube Flat Earthers have also shown that the effect can be restored with a telescope.
I don't believe there are any youtube videos of a ship, mountain, structure, etc, shown at low magnification to be partially obscured from the bottom up, and rising up to full unobstructed height (defined dimensions of the object changing as seen between the low vs high zoom) as magnification is increased.
I've never seen one. Do you have a link?
We are rebuilding our library and are considering the inclusion of such video examples. Until then you can search for one of the many ship restoration videos on Youtube in your research.
On that note, if you find a good one, I at least would like to see it. There's been a few posted before, but none particular compelling for the FE idea. They appeared to be most easily explained simply by smaller details being harder to make out at lower zoom, than any 'restoration' effect occurring.
-
Sadly, all I can find are bad ones like this. The boat is clearly in front of the horizon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouEiDGyfM50
The thumbnail image clearly shows the horizon beyond the boat.
I am literally unable to find any videos that you claim are widely available - they all suffer from some serious shortcoming like this.
Here's another great one - this clearly shows a ship going beyond the round earth horizon, no zoom restoration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYcQ_FBax38
-
The sun is a sphere. "Spotlight" refers to the spot-of-light the sun's light casts upon the earth, and is often misinterpreted to mean that the sun is non-spherical or only shines light in one direction.
I'll be honest, that's what I thought your theory was.
But the problem with that is if the sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions (which I agree it must be, otherwise how can we see the moon?) then we would be able to see it all the time. Your own Wiki page illustrates the problem:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/SunAnimation.gif/270px-SunAnimation.gif)
What is limiting the light from shining across the whole plane? You're going to say perspective, aren't you?
Perspective doesn't work like you think it does, and long shadows at sunset show the sun is PHYSICALLY low in the sky, not just appearing to be because of perspective.
-
The sun is a sphere. "Spotlight" refers to the spot-of-light the sun's light casts upon the earth, and is often misinterpreted to mean that the sun is non-spherical or only shines light in one direction.
I'll be honest, that's what I thought your theory was.
But the problem with that is if the sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions (which I agree it must be, otherwise how can we see the moon?) then we would be able to see it all the time. Your own Wiki page illustrates the problem:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/SunAnimation.gif/270px-SunAnimation.gif)
What is limiting the light from shining across the whole plane? You're going to say perspective, aren't you?
Perspective doesn't work like you think it does, and long shadows at sunset show the sun is PHYSICALLY low in the sky, not just appearing to be because of perspective.
In Earth Not a Globe the perspective lines do not meet at infinity. The perspective lines meet at merge at a finite distance. The waves and swells and such then block out bodies beyond the horizon. A small mass area above the eye level horizon can block a larger mass further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
See this illustration:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig97.jpg)
-
Why is the person at D sitting in a ditch? I think that's supposed to represent perspective but the ground doesn't physically rise so that diagram is wrong.
And I guess the S is the sun? That sun is physically touching the earth. In your model it is 3000 miles above the earth, you would easily be able to see it.
Again, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY on the horizon. Not "by perspective", perspective does not change shadow length or angle.
Earth Not a Globe is wrong about perspective.
Remember, it was written by a man who "proved" that the moon is translucent. Why do you continue to have such rock solid confidence in someone who believed that sort of thing?
-
Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.
Sorry, looks someone completely lost sense for dimensions.
Let's say the imperfection is 30m high, that's what about the maximum hight of any wave measured and reported so far.
And what is the something larger that can (should) shrink behind it?
The Sun? No. It's the "gap" between earth surface and the sun, 3,000 miles tall.
So this gives that the setting sun must be (3000*1609/30) 160,900 times farther away than the horizon.
-
Why is the person at D sitting in a ditch? I think that's supposed to represent perspective but the ground doesn't physically rise so that diagram is wrong.
The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.
And I guess the S is the sun? That sun is physically touching the earth. In your model it is 3000 miles above the earth, you would easily be able to see it.
Again, the perspective lines meet a finite distance away, and the waves block out the sun at the horizon line.
Again, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY on the horizon. Not "by perspective", perspective does not change shadow length or angle.
No, it does not prove that. If light is coming from the horizon, it is approaching horizontally, and therefore shadows will be created as appropriate.
Remember, it was written by a man who "proved" that the moon is translucent. Why do you continue to have such rock solid confidence in someone who believed that sort of thing?
Actually it was conventional astronomy sources which made observations such as stars occulting the moon. Rowbotham just quoted them.
-
Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.
Sorry, looks someone completely lost sense for dimensions.
Let's say the imperfection is 30m high, that's what about the maximum hight of any wave measured and reported so far.
And what is the something larger that can (should) shrink behind it?
The Sun? No. It's the "gap" between earth surface and the sun, 3,000 miles tall.
So this gives that the setting sun must be (3000*1609/30) 160,900 times farther away than the horizon.
At the horizon, which is a finite distance away, the perspective lines meet. The sun has merged with the earth's horizon at that point. The waves merely explain what happens to the photons of the sun after the sun intersects the horizon.
-
The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.
Why? Because you look down at your feet, then raise your eyes to see the horizon?
That's just optical illusion. I'm on the approach flightpath to an airport. Every day I see planes on my horizon, miles away from my house, and they climb in my field of view to go over my house. But I know from online trackers and from details of arrivals at the airport that they're not climbing. They're coming in to land, and descending.
It's the reverse of your feet and horizon illusion
-
Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.
Sorry, looks someone completely lost sense for dimensions.
Let's say the imperfection is 30m high, that's what about the maximum hight of any wave measured and reported so far.
And what is the something larger that can (should) shrink behind it?
The Sun? No. It's the "gap" between earth surface and the sun, 3,000 miles tall.
So this gives that the setting sun must be (3000*1609/30) 160,900 times farther away than the horizon.
At the horizon, which is a finite distance away, the perspective lines meet. The sun has merged with the earth's horizon at that point. The waves merely explain what happens to the photons of the sun after the sun intersects the horizon.
How far is the horizon? Lines of perspective meet at infinity, by definition.
-
Why is the person at D sitting in a ditch? I think that's supposed to represent perspective but the ground doesn't physically rise so that diagram is wrong.
The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.
I thought you said that the railroad tracks don't ACTUALLY meet, so why does the ground ACTUALLY rise?
There's a difference between it appearing to "rise to eye level" and it actually rising to eye level. Are you saying that the ground at the horizon is my height higher than it is where I'm standing?
-
Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.
Sorry, looks someone completely lost sense for dimensions.
Let's say the imperfection is 30m high, that's what about the maximum hight of any wave measured and reported so far.
And what is the something larger that can (should) shrink behind it?
The Sun? No. It's the "gap" between earth surface and the sun, 3,000 miles tall.
So this gives that the setting sun must be (3000*1609/30) 160,900 times farther away than the horizon.
At the horizon, which is a finite distance away, the perspective lines meet. The sun has merged with the earth's horizon at that point. The waves merely explain what happens to the photons of the sun after the sun intersects the horizon.
Please Tom, explain this again with "Law of Perspective" from http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
I would see the Sun path at line A B
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig75.jpg)
the Observer at E and his horizon at H.
But as E-C (2m) is significant smaller than E-A (3000miles!)
Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W. Hence the line A, W, is the true perspective line of A, B, forming an angle of one minute at W, which is the true vanishing point of A, B,
"forming an angle of one minute at W"? This gives a distance E-W of 3000*3000miles = 9,000,000 miles.
-
The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.
It does rise. Not to eye level, but close enough that it is hard to notice. But there is a measurable dip and that dip increases with altitude.
I never understand why you guys, who say you place so much importance on empirical measurements, don't just do some proper experiments.
There are some instructions here if you want to have a go:
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/
And actually, there would actually be a dip even if the earth was flat. Here is a brilliant diagram to show why:
(https://image.ibb.co/cuLRVx/Horizon.jpg)
On a spherical earth the curve dips away from you, so you can only see as far as that. That is why the horizon gets further away with height and the angle of dip gets larger. The higher you are the further you can see round the curve.
This diagram is clearly exaggerated, in real life the earth is much bigger and the curve much more subtle which is why the angle is hard to notice - but it is measurable.
On a flat earth the same is true. I've assumed you can only see a finite distance but even if you could see all the way to the edge of the earth you'd still be looking down at an angle because your eye, the ground and the limit of your vision (or "the edge") form a triangle. Again, the higher you are the larger angle that would be.
This is one of those strange flat earth "proofs" because
a) It's not true, and demonstrably not true.
b) A dip of horizon does not prove a flat earth or a globe, you'd get a dip either way.
I think I've finally understood what your fundamental mistake is around all this. You don't understand what the horizon IS.
I'll add this to the growing list of things I've realised you don't understand.
The horizon is simply the line between the earth and the sky. If it was "where perspective lines meet" then it would all merge into a dot.
Why would vertical perspective lines meet and not horizontal ones? .
And if sunset is just perspective lines meeting then you wouldn't see the sun slowly sinking behind the horizon with a consistent angular velocity. If an aircraft goes over your head and away from you it seems to get slower as it gets further away. The sun doesn't, it has a consistent angular velocity because the earth rotates at a consistent speed. And sunset happens quicker the closer to the equator you get for the same reason, that's where the circumference is biggest so that's where the speed is biggest.
When train tracks appear to (note the appear to) merge it is simply a limit of your visual acuity. Things which are close together can become hard to distinguish at a distance. They don't really merge together though and one certainly doesn't appear to sink into the other.
I'll do another diagram about waves blocking things out later but basically, unless the waves are higher than your viewing position then they wouldn't block out anything higher than that. If you're looking out to sea then there is nothing physically blocking out photons from a sun 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high.
If light is coming from the horizon, it is approaching horizontally, and therefore shadows will be created as appropriate.
Correct. For the wrong reason, but you are actually correct. The light is approaching horizontally, hence the long shadows.
Now all you need to do is explain how light from a sun 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high can be doing that. (Spoiler: it can't).
Horizontal means: "parallel to the plane of the horizon; at right angles to the vertical". So light coming at me horizontally is either:
1) Coming from a light source which is physically at the same level of my eye or
2) Bending somehow so it appears to be.
Pick one. Those are the only two options.
Actually it was conventional astronomy sources which made observations such as stars occulting the moon. Rowbotham just quoted them.
“During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ‘explanations,’ often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham
He's not quoting anyone there. And I thought he was concerned with empirical observations? Here he's what, just taking someone's word for it?
Like all his "proofs", he is just saying "this is what has been observed". That isn't a proof.
-
The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.
It does rise. Not to eye level, but close enough that it is hard to notice. But there is a measurable dip and that dip increases with altitude.
I never understand why you guys, who say you place so much importance on empirical measurements, don't just do some proper experiments.
There are some instructions here if you want to have a go:
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/
I just wanted to note here quick, Rowbotham has 'proven' that a theodolite is inaccurate to the point it's measurements can't be trusted. Along with this, the same location contains his 'proof' that when viewed with the eye the horizon does indeed rise to eye level, and thus there is no dip. It's somewhere in ENaG, and I've attempted to point out the flaws in this particular piece before to little avail.
-
At the horizon, which is a finite distance away, the perspective lines meet. The sun has merged with the earth's horizon at that point.
I agree with the first part, perspective lines appear to meet at the horizon. But not the second, the sun will not merge with the horizon.
Let's look at this most cited "railway tracks". Ok, if these railway tracks are very, very long, they appear to meet at the horizon. But if now someone decided to make a brown field and removes the railway tracks at a distance of 400m and further on. Will these railway tracks still appear to meet at the horizon, No. The end of the track is now near enough, so that both rails are still distinguishable.
The same with the sun. For a while the sun will follow that imaginary perspective line, that will meet the horizon. But the sun will not be able to (appear to) follow the complete perspective line, because the distance between the sun and the observer is limited. Else the sun would have to leave the track above the equator or even the circumference of the earth.
-
If sunset was literally the sun reaching the vanishing point then, as the name suggests, the sun would get smaller and smaller until it vanished.
That is literally what the vanishing point is, it's the point beyond something can't be seen but that is because of limits of visual acuity, not because the object has literally vanished.
Optical zoom will allow you to see the object again so long as there is a clear line of sight.
This demonstrably doesn't match observations of sunset.
-
If sunset was literally the sun reaching the vanishing point then, as the name suggests, the sun would get smaller and smaller until it vanished.
That is literally what the vanishing point is, it's the point beyond something can't be seen but that is because of limits of visual acuity, not because the object has literally vanished.
Optical zoom will allow you to see the object again so long as there is a clear line of sight.
This demonstrably doesn't match observations of sunset.
Did someone actually say that the sun reaches its vanishing point? If they did, indeed, say that, then I feel it is my duty to point out that, according to a passage in the "Sacred Texts" the vanishing point for any given object is equal to 3,000 times its diameter.
Sun's diameter = 32 miles
Vanishing point = 32 X 3,000 = 96,000 miles
Does anyone see something amiss with that number, or it is just me?
-
Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/25ajbyo.jpg)
-
Instead of that ^, I would expect to see this kind of sunset, if the sun intersects the horizon on its way to a vanishing point:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/9fw7bp.jpg)
-
Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/25ajbyo.jpg)
It looks like, to me, that there ocean is blocking the view of the bottom half of the sun. In the flat earth model does the ocean have hills that can block the sun?