The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 3DGeek on August 23, 2017, 10:15:10 AM

Title: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 23, 2017, 10:15:10 AM
In a recent thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710.0), Tom Bishop said a couple of interesting things:

Quote
I have argued in favor of UA EA in the past when the theory was first proposed, but have since tended to prefer the theory that light travels in straight lines and that perspective is the explanation for why the view of the sun is limited, as opposed to refraction or the Universal Electro-Magnetic Accelerator (which works, but is something I now consider to be less empirical compared to other explanations).

...and...

The perspective lines meet at a finite distance, not an infinite distance as described by the Ancient Greeks. This describes why the sun appears to descent and meet the horizon a finite distance away, as opposed to an infinite distance away.

OK - so we've established that (barring the minimal effects of atmospheric refraction) Tom believes that light travels in straight lines.  ("Rectilinear propagation" to use fancy-talk)

This is an important breakthrough (for me, at least).

What we're left with is this notion that the conventional concepts of "perspective lines" and "vanishing points" is somehow incorrect.

But "perspective lines" and "vanishing points" are merely a consequence of light travelling in straight lines.  They are a convenience for artists and the like - but they aren't some fundamental part of physics.

So there is a contradiction in Tom's mind here...one that we should probe into.

Firstly, let's take the human eye, brain and all of that other messy stuff out of the picture.   Let's not even have a lens or anything else in the way of forming an image.

Let's think about the simplest optical device imaginable...a pinhole camera.

A light-tight box with a pinhole punched in the front and a photographic plate at the back.

  (https://renaissanceinnovations.com/pinholeCamera.gif)

There are thousands of photos of sunsets made by pinhole camera enthusiasts online - here is one of them:

(https://aultparksunrise.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/207_01_sunrise_zoom_4nn.jpg)

So we know that pinhole cameras "see" sunsets...so whatever the mechanism that Tom subscribes to has to "work" with a pinhole camera.

Looking again at that diagram:

  (https://renaissanceinnovations.com/pinholeCamera.gif)

This is how perspective works with a pinhole camera.   When the tree is further away, the light coming through the pinhole makes a smaller image...right?

You can use the law of "similar triangles" to state that the height of the image on the back of the camera divided by the distance from image to the pinhole must equal the height of the tree divided by the distance from tree to pinhole.

That MUST be true if light travels in straight lines...it's elementary Euclidean geometry.

Put another way - we can come up with an equation for the height of the image:

   Himage / Dimage = Hsubject  / Dsubject

Where:
  Dimage = Distance from image to pinhole.
  Dsubject = Distance from subject to pinhole.
  Himage = Height of the image of the subject on the back of the camera.
  Hsubject = Actual height of the subject.

...which we can rearrange to:

   Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject

To make life easier, let's suppose our camera is one foot across.  So Dimage is one foot - and all of our distances are in feet...that simplifies the equation a bit:

  Himage = Hsubject / Dsubject

In English - the height of the image is the height of the subject divided by the distance it is from the camera.

This is "THE LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE" in a nutshell...just a single, simple equation that depends ONLY on the fact that light travels in straight lines and Euclidean geometry - and it's a proof that any high-school student could comprehend.

It IS indisputable.

So how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

Sorry Tom, you can't believe in "Light travels in straight lines" *AND* your funky version of perspective without denying the most basic Euclidean geometry.

Fundamentally - if at sunset, we know that the FET sun is 3000 miles up and 6000 miles west (Hsubject=3000 miles, Dsubject=6000 miles) - then a one foot long pinhole camera would show the sun to be 6" above the horizon...not the sunset that was actually photographed with a pinhole camera.

But not matter what - Tom's notions that the laws of perspective, known since the times of the Ancient Greeks are incorrect must be untrue.

So Tom....unless you wish to change your answer about how sunsets happen - we have here definitive proof that the Earth Is Not Flat.

More fundamentally:

If the Earth is truly Flat and if sunsets happen - light CANNOT travel in straight lines, and (as explained comprehensively in my previous thread) it CANNOT be due to refraction.

So, alas, poor Tom...you're back with "Electromagnetic acceleration" - which is a truly crappy hypothesis that's going to be VERY easy to disprove.   Trust me, I already have very simple evidence against that load of hogwash!

Are you now ready to admit that the world is not flat?   I really think you should.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 23, 2017, 12:44:16 PM
I'm really liking these 3DGeek, and not just because they are excellent proofs, but I'm learning more precise details about the world around me from your posts which is awesome! This for example. I knew there was something fundamentally wrong with what Tom was trying to say, but I never would have thought to lay it out like this as I didn't know about pinhole cameras. Thank you for all the work you've been putting in here and in the other threads, even if Tom's head seems tougher to break through than Wolverine's. Even if he never ever admits a thing, these threads have been very interesting and educational for me and I hope others, so thank you.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 23, 2017, 02:30:33 PM
I'm really liking these 3DGeek, and not just because they are excellent proofs, but I'm learning more precise details about the world around me from your posts which is awesome! This for example. I knew there was something fundamentally wrong with what Tom was trying to say, but I never would have thought to lay it out like this as I didn't know about pinhole cameras. Thank you for all the work you've been putting in here and in the other threads, even if Tom's head seems tougher to break through than Wolverine's. Even if he never ever admits a thing, these threads have been very interesting and educational for me and I hope others, so thank you.

I agree. The only reason I come here is to read posts like 3d made.  Science and problem solving is brain exercise.  Sitting on the couch watching TV is a great way to get fatter, not exercising your brain is a way to get dumber.

I am always fascinated by people that are so sure that what they believe is true that they can sweep away and ignore any evidence to the contrary.   The very definition of delusional is "characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."  You can't turn on the news with out seeing this in action.  Politics, religion, climate, guns, and conspiracies etc.  Every time some major event happens like a terror attack, mass shooting, whatever, instantly the internet comes alive with conspiracy theories about false flags, shadow governments, aliens etc.




Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Mock on August 23, 2017, 04:15:31 PM
I'm really liking these 3DGeek, and not just because they are excellent proofs, but I'm learning more precise details about the world around me from your posts which is awesome! This for example. I knew there was something fundamentally wrong with what Tom was trying to say, but I never would have thought to lay it out like this as I didn't know about pinhole cameras. Thank you for all the work you've been putting in here and in the other threads, even if Tom's head seems tougher to break through than Wolverine's. Even if he never ever admits a thing, these threads have been very interesting and educational for me and I hope others, so thank you.
I agree 100%. Thanks for making discussions here worthwhile (and even educational) for a change and keep up the great work :)
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 23, 2017, 05:42:54 PM
I will have to agree with everyone.
Thanks 3DGeek !!!
But just a warning.
Just post "round earth facts" in the "debate" section.
I have received "bans" for posting them in the "Q & A" section.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 23, 2017, 06:49:01 PM
To TomInAustin

About your quote from Tom Bishop.:

Charles Lindbergh knew the distance from New York to Paris in 1927.
I had been under the impression that Tom Bishop was smarter than Charles Lindbergh ???
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 23, 2017, 07:17:09 PM
To TomInAustin

About your quote from Tom Bishop.:

Charles Lindbergh knew the distance from New York to Paris in 1927.
I had been under the impression that Tom Bishop was smarter than Charles Lindbergh ???

Very good point.   
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: junker on August 24, 2017, 12:52:06 PM
So, alas, poor Tom...you're back with "Electromagnetic acceleration" - which is a truly crappy hypothesis that's going to be VERY easy to disprove.   Trust me, I already have very simple evidence against that load of hogwash!

Are you now ready to admit that the world is not flat?   I really think you should.

Alrighty then, go ahead and disprove it since it is so easy.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2017, 10:13:16 PM
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 25, 2017, 08:47:42 AM
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

So you are denying the law of similar triangles...do I really have that right?  Because if that is your last remaining defense...you lost the fight Tom.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: StinkyOne on August 25, 2017, 11:52:57 AM
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

Your world view is based on an ancient theory with no empirical proof that stands up to scrutiny. Am I missing something here?
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 12:28:04 PM
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

So you are denying the law of similar triangles...do I really have that right?  Because if that is your last remaining defense...you lost the fight Tom.

Why not use a law about the perspective lines intersecting when they meet in the distance? Why must we assume that they will travel for infinity?

You are attempting to tell us that two lines approaching each other will never meet, which is an absurdity. If two lines are approaching each other then logically they must meet at some point. In fact, they do seemingly meet, at the vanishing point, and you are trying to pass this meeting of the lines off as an illusion in favor of an ancient and unproven concept about infinities.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 25, 2017, 12:36:31 PM
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

So you are denying the law of similar triangles...do I really have that right?  Because if that is your last remaining defense...you lost the fight Tom.

Why not use a law about the perspective lines intersecting when they meet in the distance? Why must we assume that they will travel for infinity?

You are attempting to tell us that two lines approaching each other will never meet, which is an absurdity. If two lines are approaching each other then logically they must meet at some point. In fact, they do seemingly meet, at the vanishing point, and you are trying to pass this meeting of the lines off as an illusion in favor of an ancient and unproven concept about infinities.
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 01:47:00 PM
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

In our vision these lines do meet, at the vanishing point, and an attempt is being made to call this an illusion on the basis of ancient theories of infinity. The need for empirical proof is denied altogether, in favor of "theory".

Your assertion that they never "ACTUALLY" meet if you were to change your position and see the situation from a different perspective is irrelevant. From that position, they DO meet, which implies that the angles eventually merge, that photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once, and it is possible that some may be blocked out if the earth is not perfectly flat and there are any slight imperfections on the surface as the lines merge (sunset).

You are operating under the assumption that perspective is all an illusion, and that there is a greater reality that operates from a theoretical side angle view seen from outside of the universe, where these triangles and conclusions of infinities may be plotted onto a diagram, rather than reality operating in line with the rules of first person perspective observed.

We can see that my assertions on this matter are based in empiricism, on what actually is observed, whereas your assertions are based entirely on ancient theory.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: StinkyOne on August 25, 2017, 01:51:15 PM
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

In our vision these lines do meet, at the vanishing point, and an attempt is being made to call this an illusion on the basis of ancient theories of infinity. The need for empirical proof is denied altogether, in favor of "theory".

Your assertion that they never "ACTUALLY" meet if you were to change your position and see the situation from a different perspective is irrelevant. From that position, they DO meet, which implies that the angles eventually merge, that photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once, and it is possible that some may be blocked out if the earth is not perfectly flat and there are any slight imperfections on the surface as the lines merge (sunset).

You are operating under the assumption that perspective is all an illusion, and that there is a greater reality that operates from a theoretical side angle view seen from outside of the universe, where these triangles and conclusions of infinities may be plotted onto a diagram, rather than reality operating in line with the rules of first person perspective observed.

We can see that my assertions on this matter are based in empiricism, on what actually is observed, and your assertions are based entirely on ancient theory.

I'm a little confused on the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that an optical illusion is, in fact, not an illusion and that the train tracks actually eventually touch? Does this mean that a train going down the tracks actually gets smaller as it travels away from you? Empiricism is fine to a point, but you can't trust your senses to give you an accurate picture of the world.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMlWsMLGRkrU27qLW7QwKXOkl6qIuJ65XI8cpWvhWHrfxFJK7ACQ)
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 02:03:26 PM
The angles you see touch. The angles are real. It is possible to see the situation from another position to get a different result, but the observed reality at the position you are at is the reality, for all intents.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 25, 2017, 02:09:52 PM
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

In our vision these lines do meet, at the vanishing point, and an attempt is being made to call this an illusion on the basis of ancient theories of infinity. The need for empirical proof is denied altogether, in favor of "theory".

Your assertion that they never "ACTUALLY" meet if you were to change your position and see the situation from a different perspective is irrelevant. From that position, they DO meet, which implies that the angles eventually merge, that photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once, and it is possible that some may be blocked out if the earth is not perfectly flat and there are any slight imperfections on the surface as the lines merge (sunset).

You are operating under the assumption that perspective is all an illusion, and that there is a greater reality that operates from a theoretical side angle view seen from outside of the universe, where these triangles and conclusions of infinities may be plotted onto a diagram, rather than reality operating in line with the rules of first person perspective observed.

We can see that my assertions on this matter are based in empiricism, on what actually is observed, and your assertions are based entirely on ancient theory.

I'm a little confused on the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that an optical illusion is, in fact, not an illusion and that the train tracks actually eventually touch? Does this mean that a train going down the tracks actually gets smaller as it travels away from you? Empiricism is fine to a point, but you can't trust your senses to give you an accurate picture of the world.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMlWsMLGRkrU27qLW7QwKXOkl6qIuJ65XI8cpWvhWHrfxFJK7ACQ)
Which I think is actually exactly his point. I don't get how it took him this long to express it in any meaningful way, but that's neither here nor there. He's saying, in the same way the railroad track appears to merge is the way the sun vanishes. Because there's no longer enough definition (photons, pixels, what have you) for our eye to tell the difference between the sun and the ground. Which, in theory, would cause the sun to set.

The real issue is where the math comes into play. Because no matter what it 'looks' like, those angles we're talking about up there still exist. Just because we can't tell the difference between the two tracks, or the train looks the size of our thumb, doesn't make those things that way in reality. The light from the sun is still coming from the sun, it's still 3000 miles up. This is where the angles I was talking about in the airplane thread are important. Because of the height it still actually has, the angle of the light coming from it can never become flat. You can't have light coming from the sun at a less than ~8.5 degree angle (assuming a frankly enormous Earth). The sun can perhaps seem to vanish, but the light rays at that time should not be coming in at a flat angle. Assuming light doesn't bend ofc.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: StinkyOne on August 25, 2017, 04:19:29 PM
The angles you see touch. The angles are real. It is possible to see the situation from another position to get a different result, but the observed reality at the position you are at is the reality, for all intents.

So why does the Sun look larger on the horizon then?

BTW, you put W A Y to much stock in the vanishing point.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 06:29:35 AM
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

So you are denying the law of similar triangles...do I really have that right?  Because if that is your last remaining defense...you lost the fight Tom.

Why not use a law about the perspective lines intersecting when they meet in the distance? Why must we assume that they will travel for infinity?

You are attempting to tell us that two lines approaching each other will never meet, which is an absurdity. If two lines are approaching each other then logically they must meet at some point. In fact, they do seemingly meet, at the vanishing point, and you are trying to pass this meeting of the lines off as an illusion in favor of an ancient and unproven concept about infinities.
(I fixed my post at the top of the thread with pinhole camera images from a more reliable site - and also found a better pinhole camera photo of a sunset.)

@Tom: Since this stuff clearly confuses you (although it's hard to understand why), you may forget the "infinities" part - it is true - but it's not important to the discussion right now.  All that matters is that this equation describes the relationship between the height of the subject and image in a pinhole camera:

  Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject

This is an equation I've derived from the simplest geometry...and it relies ONLY on the law of similar triangles and that light travels in straight lines - nothing else is required.  You've admitted to the latter - and I don't think you disagree with basic high-school geometry...so anything beyond this is an attempt to evade the inevitable.

If the sun is setting where I'm standing - and it's noon someplace that's (say) 6000 miles away - then the sun is (say) 3000 miles above the FE ground and let's say, 6000 miles away horizontally.

Hsubject is the height of the sun above the ground (3000 miles), Dsubject is 6000 miles.

If my pinhole camera is 1 foot long then Dimage is 1 foot.

   Himage = 3000 miles x 1 foot / 6000 miles

Therefore if the Earth is flat, then a photograph of the sun at sunset should show the sun to be 3000/6000ths of a foot (6") above the horizon in the image...clearly it's NOT "setting" as it does in any of a gazillion photos of sunsets taken by pinhole camera enthusiasts.

So if the Earth is flat, you DON'T get sunsets in a pinhole camera.

You are welcome to plug in ANY numbers you like for the height of the sun above the FE ground and for the distance between the place where the sun is setting and the place where it's noon.   I don't care what numbers you choose for those things - Himage cannot be zero, so the FE sun cannot "set".

The ONLY two facts I relied upon to come to that conclusions are:

1) That light travels in straight lines.
2) The law of similar triangles.

I did NOT rely on infinities...human eye failings...ancient greek ideas about perspective...NOTHING.  Just those two things.

Now Mr Bishop - I'd like you to try to concentrate for a moment.

Your precious Flat Earth theory can ONLY be true if either:

1) Light DOES NOT travel in straight lines...
    ...OR...
2) The law of similar triangles is untrue.

If it would help you, I can provide you with the standard proof of (2) - it's one of the consequences of Euclidean geometry.  However, I'm sure you know how to use Google, so let's not clutter up the thread.

If I were you - I would not try to argue that (2) is the case.

You have a better chance of holding on to your (very tattered) FE theory by going with (1) and reversing your position on light travelling in straight lines.

At this point, you need your outdated (and frankly, utterly insane) "Electromagnetic Accelerator" theory to be bending light or else you're dead in the water here.

But I'm sure you're aware that I'm slowly boxing you into a corner using logic so simple that even a child could understand it.  Getting you to agree to non-straight light is just another step in my strategy to make your theory look even more silly than it already does.

Don't worry - I have lots more arguments like this - I can keep up this level of pressure for a LONG time to come...I might have eased off a bit because there are enough great arguments out there and the case is now well-proven.  Most of your fellow FE'ers have apparently given up on you.  But then you said my daughter (a proud ex-Navy officer) is an "untrustworthy murderer" and have failed to apologize for that...so...I'm planning to keep up the pressure.

Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 07:48:31 AM
Let's make it even simpler, so even Tom's limited understanding of geometry can withstand:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PinholeMath.png)

The top part of the diagram shows our trusty pinhole camera positioned towards the horizon at "sunset" - and a few thousand miles away we have a place where it's noon right now - so the sun is vertically overhead - and some fairly large distance above the ground.   The camera takes an inverted photo of the sunset.

The bottom part of the diagram simplifies things and adds labels...we can talk about these two triangles being "similar" because angle 'a' equals angle 'b' - we have right angles in both triangles and the third angle is therefore (90-a) and (90-b) - so the two triangles are similar by the "AAA" rule.   We can calculate the angle 'a' (it comes out to around 30 degrees with FET data) - so we know 'b' - and using that and the size of the camera, we can calculate Himage that way.   There are any number of ways to do this.

But we don't need to do any of that to prove that the world isn't flat...we can just use our eyes.

So...if the orange light ray and the green light ray are straight lines.   How can the image of the sun be on top of the image of the horizon?

Forget math, geometry, similar triangles, perspective...ignore all possible other confusions.

HOW THE HECK DOES THE FE WORLD GET SUNSETS?


(Oh!  Wait!  I know..."Check the Wiki" - right?)

The only possibility is that the light from the sun enters the pinhole parallel to the light from the horizon.  The light simply cannot be travelling in a straight line.

So EITHER the world is flat or light bends around curves for reasons that are evidently a complete mystery to FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

Now, Tom is on record as saying that he believes that light travels in straight lines - I quoted him directly at the top of this thread.

I think he now has to admit that he's made a mistake there...and we're back to the super-hokey "Electromagnetic Accelerator" idea.  (Which, I'm sure he knows we can make mincemeat of).

The interesting news here is that he can't flim-flam his way out of it - this is FAR too simple an argument.  So (I believe) we finally force him to shift his position on something.  It's a small step.  There will be more things - but this would be a start.

I shooting fish in a barrel fun?  Not really - but it's less fun for the fish.

   :-)
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2017, 01:21:52 PM
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgbqFyiisQ
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: inquisitive on August 26, 2017, 02:28:21 PM
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgbqFyiisQ
Omits to show angles from several places at the same time.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 26, 2017, 04:32:20 PM
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgbqFyiisQ
Tom, I told you why that video is irrelevant in the other thread. Parallel lines can't cross. Them crossing/meeting in the distance is an optical illusion/limitation of visual equipment. The sun *may* be able to appear to set due to perspective on a flat Earth, but so long as light travels in straight lines, you cannot ever see the light from the sun coming in at a declination of less than 8.5 degrees above the horizon. That's what the math here is showing us. Distance and height are quite clear on that. Perspective cannot change where something actually is, or it's actual size.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 06:42:47 PM
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view.

Sorry - how?   I draw a diagram showing the path of light from the sun to the back of a super-simple camera.  These cameras exist - I used to have one - it's not "outside of the universe".

Human eyes do very similar things to pinhole cameras - and I can draw that diagram if it helps (it doesn't).

This isn't some abstract or complicated thing.  Two rays of light travel through a small hole and form an image.

How does that image produce a sunset?

It's a simple question Tom.

Very VERY simple.

Even people with an elementary school education can follow this argument.

Tell me what is wrong with my diagram.   The light from the sun travels in straight lines - and hits the back of the camera to expose film.   If the light isn't "bent" how the hell can the image of the sun touch the image of the horizon...as it plainly does.

Just explain that to me.

(Yeah - I know you can't - so you're jumping off into la-la land and desperately trying to redirect a VERY simple explanation into some confusing mess that you hope will derail the conversation.)

JUST TELL ME WHAT'S NOT TRUE ABOUT MY DIAGRAM.

(Or admit that you're wrong.)
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 27, 2017, 02:13:39 AM
In a recent thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710.0), Tom Bishop said a couple of interesting things:

Quote
I have argued in favor of UA EA in the past when the theory was first proposed, but have since tended to prefer the theory that light travels in straight lines and that perspective is the explanation for why the view of the sun is limited, as opposed to refraction or the Universal Electro-Magnetic Accelerator (which works, but is something I now consider to be less empirical compared to other explanations).

...and...

The perspective lines meet at a finite distance, not an infinite distance as described by the Ancient Greeks. This describes why the sun appears to descent and meet the horizon a finite distance away, as opposed to an infinite distance away.

OK - so we've established that (barring the minimal effects of atmospheric refraction) Tom believes that light travels in straight lines.  ("Rectilinear propagation" to use fancy-talk)

This is an important breakthrough (for me, at least).

What we're left with is this notion that the conventional concepts of "perspective lines" and "vanishing points" is somehow incorrect.

But "perspective lines" and "vanishing points" are merely a consequence of light travelling in straight lines.  They are a convenience for artists and the like - but they aren't some fundamental part of physics.

So there is a contradiction in Tom's mind here...one that we should probe into.

Firstly, let's take the human eye, brain and all of that other messy stuff out of the picture.   Let's not even have a lens or anything else in the way of forming an image.

Let's think about the simplest optical device imaginable...a pinhole camera.

A light-tight box with a pinhole punched in the front and a photographic plate at the back.

  (https://renaissanceinnovations.com/pinholeCamera.gif)

There are thousands of photos of sunsets made by pinhole camera enthusiasts online - here is one of them:

(https://aultparksunrise.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/207_01_sunrise_zoom_4nn.jpg)

So we know that pinhole cameras "see" sunsets...so whatever the mechanism that Tom subscribes to has to "work" with a pinhole camera.

Looking again at that diagram:

  (https://renaissanceinnovations.com/pinholeCamera.gif)

This is how perspective works with a pinhole camera.   When the tree is further away, the light coming through the pinhole makes a smaller image...right?

You can use the law of "similar triangles" to state that the height of the image on the back of the camera divided by the distance from image to the pinhole must equal the height of the tree divided by the distance from tree to pinhole.

That MUST be true if light travels in straight lines...it's elementary Euclidean geometry.

Put another way - we can come up with an equation for the height of the image:

   Himage / Dimage = Hsubject  / Dsubject

Where:
  Dimage = Distance from image to pinhole.
  Dsubject = Distance from subject to pinhole.
  Himage = Height of the image of the subject on the back of the camera.
  Hsubject = Actual height of the subject.

...which we can rearrange to:

   Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject

To make life easier, let's suppose our camera is one foot across.  So Dimage is one foot - and all of our distances are in feet...that simplifies the equation a bit:

  Himage = Hsubject / Dsubject

In English - the height of the image is the height of the subject divided by the distance it is from the camera.

This is "THE LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE" in a nutshell...just a single, simple equation that depends ONLY on the fact that light travels in straight lines and Euclidean geometry - and it's a proof that any high-school student could comprehend.

It IS indisputable.

So how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

Sorry Tom, you can't believe in "Light travels in straight lines" *AND* your funky version of perspective without denying the most basic Euclidean geometry.

Fundamentally - if at sunset, we know that the FET sun is 3000 miles up and 6000 miles west (Hsubject=3000 miles, Dsubject=6000 miles) - then a one foot long pinhole camera would show the sun to be 6" above the horizon...not the sunset that was actually photographed with a pinhole camera.

But not matter what - Tom's notions that the laws of perspective, known since the times of the Ancient Greeks are incorrect must be untrue.

So Tom....unless you wish to change your answer about how sunsets happen - we have here definitive proof that the Earth Is Not Flat.

More fundamentally:

If the Earth is truly Flat and if sunsets happen - light CANNOT travel in straight lines, and (as explained comprehensively in my previous thread) it CANNOT be due to refraction.

So, alas, poor Tom...you're back with "Electromagnetic acceleration" - which is a truly crappy hypothesis that's going to be VERY easy to disprove.   Trust me, I already have very simple evidence against that load of hogwash!

Are you now ready to admit that the world is not flat?   I really think you should.

The pinhole camera diagram seems to be rather elementary, My Dear Watson.
On any camera, lens or pin hole, the closer to the subject the camera is , the large the image in the camera is.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 27, 2017, 08:46:35 AM

The pinhole camera diagram seems to be rather elementary, My Dear Watson.
On any camera, lens or pin hole, the closer to the subject the camera is , the large the image in the camera is.

Stripped to it's bare essentials - this is the only thing anyone needs to understand why there cannot be FE sunsets:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PinholeMath.png)

It really doesn't get any simpler than that - and Tom is now resorting to his usual flim-flam tactics - which is how you know he's beaten.

So Tom - please address this point - or give up.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Rounder on August 27, 2017, 04:54:41 PM
This is an equation I've derived from the simplest geometry...and it relies ONLY on the law of similar triangles and that light travels in straight lines - nothing else is required.  You've admitted to the latter - and I don't think you disagree with basic high-school geometry...so anything beyond this is an attempt to evade the inevitable.
Don't be so sure.  We've seen Tom deny that large-scale geometry works the same way that small-scale geometry works.  That alone is an explicit rejection of high school geometry.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: frodo467 on August 27, 2017, 08:01:09 PM
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgbqFyiisQ

So according to this video, according to perspective, the sun and the horizon will meet, and the parallel railroad tracks will meet.  Fine, I will give you that, but the real issue here is that what is observed to be happening with the sun and the horizon is that the parallel lines (railroad tracks, horizon\sun) CROSS. 

The sun sets and goes out of sight.  It doesn't simply meet the horizon in the distance and then stay there at eye level which is what we would expect from a forced perspective of two parallels.  What we observer is the lines cross (the horizontal line of the sun crosses the horizontal line of the horizon) which is impossible in a forced perspective parallel. 

Your perspective argument is invalid because of this.  Two parallel lines will appear to meet, but they will never appear to cross.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2017, 07:54:27 PM
Let's make it even simpler, so even Tom's limited understanding of geometry can withstand:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PinholeMath.png)

The top part of the diagram shows our trusty pinhole camera positioned towards the horizon at "sunset" - and a few thousand miles away we have a place where it's noon right now - so the sun is vertically overhead - and some fairly large distance above the ground.   The camera takes an inverted photo of the sunset.

The bottom part of the diagram simplifies things and adds labels...we can talk about these two triangles being "similar" because angle 'a' equals angle 'b' - we have right angles in both triangles and the third angle is therefore (90-a) and (90-b) - so the two triangles are similar by the "AAA" rule.   We can calculate the angle 'a' (it comes out to around 30 degrees with FET data) - so we know 'b' - and using that and the size of the camera, we can calculate Himage that way.   There are any number of ways to do this.

But we don't need to do any of that to prove that the world isn't flat...we can just use our eyes.

So...if the orange light ray and the green light ray are straight lines.   How can the image of the sun be on top of the image of the horizon?

Forget math, geometry, similar triangles, perspective...ignore all possible other confusions.

HOW THE HECK DOES THE FE WORLD GET SUNSETS?


(Oh!  Wait!  I know..."Check the Wiki" - right?)

The only possibility is that the light from the sun enters the pinhole parallel to the light from the horizon.  The light simply cannot be travelling in a straight line.

So EITHER the world is flat or light bends around curves for reasons that are evidently a complete mystery to FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

Now, Tom is on record as saying that he believes that light travels in straight lines - I quoted him directly at the top of this thread.

I think he now has to admit that he's made a mistake there...and we're back to the super-hokey "Electromagnetic Accelerator" idea.  (Which, I'm sure he knows we can make mincemeat of).

The interesting news here is that he can't flim-flam his way out of it - this is FAR too simple an argument.  So (I believe) we finally force him to shift his position on something.  It's a small step.  There will be more things - but this would be a start.

I shooting fish in a barrel fun?  Not really - but it's less fun for the fish.

   :-)

If the camera is seeing the sunset why is the sun high in the sky? By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset. An observer with a camera seeing the sunset will see the sun at the horizon, not high in the sky.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 19, 2017, 09:55:46 PM
Let's make it even simpler, so even Tom's limited understanding of geometry can withstand:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PinholeMath.png)

The top part of the diagram shows our trusty pinhole camera positioned towards the horizon at "sunset" - and a few thousand miles away we have a place where it's noon right now - so the sun is vertically overhead - and some fairly large distance above the ground.   The camera takes an inverted photo of the sunset.

The bottom part of the diagram simplifies things and adds labels...we can talk about these two triangles being "similar" because angle 'a' equals angle 'b' - we have right angles in both triangles and the third angle is therefore (90-a) and (90-b) - so the two triangles are similar by the "AAA" rule.   We can calculate the angle 'a' (it comes out to around 30 degrees with FET data) - so we know 'b' - and using that and the size of the camera, we can calculate Himage that way.   There are any number of ways to do this.

But we don't need to do any of that to prove that the world isn't flat...we can just use our eyes.

So...if the orange light ray and the green light ray are straight lines.   How can the image of the sun be on top of the image of the horizon?

Forget math, geometry, similar triangles, perspective...ignore all possible other confusions.

HOW THE HECK DOES THE FE WORLD GET SUNSETS?


(Oh!  Wait!  I know..."Check the Wiki" - right?)

The only possibility is that the light from the sun enters the pinhole parallel to the light from the horizon.  The light simply cannot be travelling in a straight line.

So EITHER the world is flat or light bends around curves for reasons that are evidently a complete mystery to FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

Now, Tom is on record as saying that he believes that light travels in straight lines - I quoted him directly at the top of this thread.

I think he now has to admit that he's made a mistake there...and we're back to the super-hokey "Electromagnetic Accelerator" idea.  (Which, I'm sure he knows we can make mincemeat of).

The interesting news here is that he can't flim-flam his way out of it - this is FAR too simple an argument.  So (I believe) we finally force him to shift his position on something.  It's a small step.  There will be more things - but this would be a start.

I shooting fish in a barrel fun?  Not really - but it's less fun for the fish.

   :-)

If the camera is seeing the sunset why is the sun high in the sky? By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset. An observer with a camera seeing the sunset will see the sun at the horizon, not high in the sky.

The sun is where you FE'ers tell us it is.  Roughly 6,000 miles away - and 3,000 miles vertically above some distant place where the time is still noon.

Remember - you AREN'T telling us that the sun literally lowers to the ground and leaves a gigantic 30 mile scorch-mark on the dirt...right?   (Pretty sure that's not what you're saying).

You said: "By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset." - but you don't literally mean that...right? (If you do, then we have that giant scorch mark!)  You must mean something like: "It appears, to the human eye, as if the sun was at the horizon at sunset"...which is the point that we RE'ers cannot understand.

If it only "appears" that the sun is at the horizon - but "really" it's 3,000 miles above some far distant place where it's noon right now.   Is that a correct statement?

So...we're back to asking you "How is it possible for light to travel in a straight line from the sun, through the pinhole (or through your iris...same deal) and hit the film at the back of the camera (or your retina...same deal) at the same exact spot as the horizon line.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: devils advocate on September 19, 2017, 10:16:44 PM
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

In our vision these lines do meet, at the vanishing point, and an attempt is being made to call this an illusion on the basis of ancient theories of infinity. The need for empirical proof is denied altogether, in favor of "theory".

Your assertion that they never "ACTUALLY" meet if you were to change your position and see the situation from a different perspective is irrelevant. From that position, they DO meet, which implies that the angles eventually merge, that photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once, and it is possible that some may be blocked out if the earth is not perfectly flat and there are any slight imperfections on the surface as the lines merge (sunset).

You are operating under the assumption that perspective is all an illusion, and that there is a greater reality that operates from a theoretical side angle view seen from outside of the universe, where these triangles and conclusions of infinities may be plotted onto a diagram, rather than reality operating in line with the rules of first person perspective observed.

We can see that my assertions on this matter are based in empiricism, on what actually is observed, whereas your assertions are based entirely on ancient theory.

Tom its surely not based on theory alone. A pair of railway tracks WILL carry on far beyond the point in the distance they appear to meet. Take any train you wish Tom and you will see that you travel on these parallel lines beyond the point they ever appear to meet. Stop at every station along the line and look as the tracks join in the distance, get back on the train and travel beyond that point. Yes parallel lines WILL continue infinitely without touching even though empirically they appear to point towards each other.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: inquisitive on September 19, 2017, 10:22:33 PM
Any explanation of sunset has to also explain sunrise at another location at the same time and every measurement and observation in between.

Tom has not disagreed with any of the data published in timeanddate.com
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: devils advocate on September 19, 2017, 10:29:18 PM
Any explanation of sunset has to also explain sunrise at another location at the same time and every measurement and observation in between.

Tom has not disagreed with any of the data published in timeanddate.com

Very good point Inquisitive. How do the FE explain simultaneous sunrise and sunset around the earth? Tom any thoughts??
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 03:47:34 AM
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 20, 2017, 05:42:29 AM
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.
Have you considered the math and diagrams don't work because reality isn't flat? If the Earth was a globe none of these problems would exist. Otherwise we're back to perspective somehow actually alters reality, or light doesn't travel in straight lines.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: devils advocate on September 20, 2017, 08:12:37 AM
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.

Tom it reads here like you are saying that reality is based solely on what we see, as in how we perceive reality is the truth of reality. This cannot be so:

If I hold a child's toy cow (6cm long) and stand in a field of real cows I can hold the toy up to the real cows and see clearly that the toy is much smaller. If I then walk away from the field and repeat I will soon reach a point where I hold the toy cow up so that it appears to be next to a real cow in the distant field and THEY BOTH APPEAR TO BE THE SAME SIZE.

We know that they are not the same size though don't we Tom or does your empirical argument state that as they look the same size they must be?
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 20, 2017, 08:21:15 AM
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.

Tom it reads here like you are saying that reality is based solely on what we see, as in how we perceive reality is the truth of reality. This cannot be so:

If I hold a child's toy cow (6cm long) and stand in a field of real cows I can hold the toy up to the real cows and see clearly that the toy is much smaller. If I then walk away from the field and repeat I will soon reach a point where I hold the toy cow up so that it appears to be next to a real cow in the distant field and THEY BOTH APPEAR TO BE THE SAME SIZE.

We know that they are not the same size though don't we Tom or does your empirical argument state that as they look the same size they must be?
this is precisely what I had in mind, as a matter of fact I was looking for this video here, as an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNbF006Y5x4
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Obviously on September 20, 2017, 03:03:24 PM
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view.

This is so hilarious Tom! Outside the universe? I'm starting to suspect that flatheadism is a drug-induced state - maybe we should investigate the prescriptions these guys are taking. Seriously, wtf do you have to be smoking to come up with stuff like that? Every time Tom encounters something that destroys the FE hoax, he seems to come up with crazier and crazier excuses.

I've asked you this before in another thread, and I'll ask it here again: do you really think that the view affects reality? The answer is obviously no.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 20, 2017, 04:35:03 PM
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.

OK...Tom - you have officially gone off the rails here.

So you are saying that at sunset, the sun is LITERALLY at the horizon.   How come it doesn't set light to the ground when it touches it?    How come people 6,000 miles away can clearly see that it's 3,000 miles above their heads?

You are telling us that the light from the sun makes it APPEAR to be on the horizon...not that it literally descends from the eye and touches the ground...right?

The point here is that the diagram is based upon what you tell us is the literal position of the physical sun orb.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 04:51:42 PM
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.
Have you considered the math and diagrams don't work because reality isn't flat? If the Earth was a globe none of these problems would exist. Otherwise we're back to perspective somehow actually alters reality, or light doesn't travel in straight lines.

Your perspective diagrams are entirely insufficient. None of your perspective diagrams consider that the lands ascend upwards to meet the sun, as an example. Therefore they are insufficient as a representation of perspective.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 20, 2017, 04:51:57 PM
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.
Have you considered the math and diagrams don't work because reality isn't flat? If the Earth was a globe none of these problems would exist. Otherwise we're back to perspective somehow actually alters reality, or light doesn't travel in straight lines.

The sun is on the horizon; therefore that is what all perspective diagrams must depict. None of your perspective diagrams consider that the lands ascend upwards to meet the sun, as an example. Therefore they are insufficient as a representation of perspective.

The question was asked, and I apologize if you have answered this elsewhere, in your concept of perspective, does the sun actually move closer to the Earth? This may be a dumb misunderstanding on my part, but I just want to be clear where you stand.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 04:55:22 PM
The question was asked, and I apologize if you have answered this elsewhere, in your concept of perspective, does the sun actually move closer to the Earth? This may be a dumb misunderstanding on my part, but I just want to be clear where you stand.

Perspective is an orientation of bodies seen around the observer. When things move that orientation is modified. The sun does not move closer to the earth, but when it moves it follows tracks of perspective lines which are on an orientation to intersect with the earth.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 20, 2017, 04:56:28 PM
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.
Have you considered the math and diagrams don't work because reality isn't flat? If the Earth was a globe none of these problems would exist. Otherwise we're back to perspective somehow actually alters reality, or light doesn't travel in straight lines.

Your perspective diagrams are entirely insufficient. None of your perspective diagrams consider that the lands ascend upwards to meet the sun, as an example. Therefore they are insufficient as a representation of perspective.
But the land doesn't A) Actually rise up to the level of your eye and B) only rises to the level of your eye in perspective. So the sun is still 20ish degrees above the level of your eye. Just like is shown in those images. How about this. Draw us a side view of what you believe is happening. Show the actual position of the sun, the apparent position of the sun, and the same for the ground/horizon. Everything we're showing is the actual location of the sun and horizon. How can perspective close a gap of 20 degrees?
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 05:07:09 PM
But the land doesn't A) Actually rise up to the level of your eye and B) only rises to the level of your eye in perspective. So the sun is still 20ish degrees above the level of your eye. Just like is shown in those images. How about this. Draw us a side view of what you believe is happening. Show the actual position of the sun, the apparent position of the sun, and the same for the ground/horizon. Everything we're showing is the actual location of the sun and horizon. How can perspective close a gap of 20 degrees?

The sun follows the orientation of the perspective lines, which places bodies at the vanishing point to be on the eye level horizon, 90 degrees from zenith.

Your imagined "gap" of 20 degrees is based on an incorrect depiction of perspective which is missing several elements. The depictions you are using do not consider that the lands are tilted upwards and ascend in perspective until they get to eye level, as an example. 90 degrees of space which fills up the observer's vision is ignored, showing that the model is fallacious.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 20, 2017, 05:07:24 PM
But the land doesn't A) Actually rise up to the level of your eye and B) only rises to the level of your eye in perspective. So the sun is still 20ish degrees above the level of your eye. Just like is shown in those images. How about this. Draw us a side view of what you believe is happening. Show the actual position of the sun, the apparent position of the sun, and the same for the ground/horizon. Everything we're showing is the actual location of the sun and horizon. How can perspective close a gap of 20 degrees?

The sun follows the orientation of the perspective lines, which places bodies at the vanishing point to be on the eye level horizon, 90 degrees from zenith.

Your imagined "gap" of 20 degrees is based on an incorrect depiction of perspective which is missing several elements. The depictions you are using do not consider that the lands are tilted upwards and ascend in perspective until they get to eye level, as an example. 90 degrees of space which fills up the user's vision is ignored, showing that the model is fallacious.
Again, these images are not 'perspective' images, they are simple triangle images showing the angles involved based on distances. YOU need to show how your magical perspective can have both these figures correct, and still have a sun setting. It's not an imagined gap, it's a real gap based on the distances involved. This is of course completely ignoring the whole non-shrinking sun thing for now.

The lands also will not tilt upwards that high. Something below the plane of your eye, cannot rise above the plane of your eye due to perspective, and vise versa.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 05:09:08 PM
Again, these images are not 'perspective' images

Perspective is a fundamental cause for how objects are oriented around an observer. It should be accounted for.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 20, 2017, 05:17:36 PM
Again, these images are not 'perspective' images

Perspective is a fundamental cause for how objects are oriented around an observer. It should be accounted for.
Not until you can explain how it can account for a sun being 20 degrees above the horizontal can appear at the horizon. This is simple math. If the sun is 3000 miles up, and 6000 miles away, it's at a 20 degree angle above the horizontal. This means, if light travels in straight lines, that light is coming in at 20 degrees above the horizontal. Yet the sun also appears to be at the horizon and it's light is coming in at a near 0 degree angle. Explain how 'perspective' accomplishes that.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 05:33:48 PM
Again, these images are not 'perspective' images

Perspective is a fundamental cause for how objects are oriented around an observer. It should be accounted for.
Not until you can explain how it can account for a sun being 20 degrees above the horizontal can appear at the horizon. This is simple math. If the sun is 3000 miles up, and 6000 miles away, it's at a 20 degree angle above the horizontal. This means, if light travels in straight lines, that light is coming in at 20 degrees above the horizontal. Yet the sun also appears to be at the horizon and it's light is coming in at a near 0 degree angle. Explain how 'perspective' accomplishes that.

Its math which does not accurately account for perspective. You have admitted yourself that the diagrams in the math do not account for perspective. Nothing more needs to be said. It is an incorrect model. You are trying to depict where the observer sees the sun; and it is not accounting for the phenomenon of perspective which orients bodies around you.

Your model also says that it is impossible for the lands to reach eye level. However, the lands are not below the horizontal in reality. The lands reach the horizontal, and unless you can depict that then any math you perform on such a scene is invalid.

Different triangles must be used, on a scene in which the concept of a vanishing point actually exists! Your insistence on using this invalid model depiction of where and how bodies should be positioned is unjustified. No one have ever even seen a scene like the one you are proposing -- it is entirely theoretical. Such theories must be accurate in their assumptions and representations. You have admitted that your model is lacking of certain elements and thus it must be thrown out entirely.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 20, 2017, 05:34:27 PM
The heart of the problem here is Tom's insistance that "perspective" is somehow a law of physics that transcends the boundaries of space (and quite possibly, time).

In my opinion, I should be able to ask this pair of questions of FE'ers and get a simple, comprehensible answer:

1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

At this stage, I'm not interested in what I see I'm interested only in where the photons physically travel to get from the 30 mile diameter sun and into my eyeball.   If it helps, let's not even use an eyeball - how does light arrive to illuminate a building that's right next to me.

As far as I can tell from Tom's posts prior to this thread, his answers should be something like:

1) The sun is vertically above a point where it is noon.  It is approximately 3,000 miles up - and approximately 6,000 miles away horizontally.

2) Light travels in straight lines - so you may draw a straight line from where the sun it to where your eyeball is.

But rather than put words into his mouth - I'd just like to hear similarly simple, straightforward answers about where the light rays travel.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 05:48:48 PM
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

Quote
1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?

Beneath the sun an observer sees that the sun is above overhead and the light rays are traveling downwards. At sunset the observer sees that the sun is at the horizon; placed there by perspective. The light rays are coming in at 90 degrees from zenith. Perspective has oriented the sun to be in that location.

Quote
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

At sunset the photons travel from the horizon to your eye, which is a horizontal path. The cause is a result of how perspective orients itself around you.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 20, 2017, 05:54:12 PM
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

Quote
1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?

Beneath the sun an observer sees that the sun is above overhead and the light rays are traveling downwards. At sunset the observer sees that the sun is at the horizon; placed there by perspective. The light rays are coming in at 90 degrees from zenith. Perspective has oriented the sun to be in that location.

Quote
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

The photons travel from the horizon to your eye, which is a horizontal path. The cause is a result of how perspective orients itself around you.
1) How? Is the sun physically there? Where is your evidence this will happen the way you describe? (Reminder, the sun and moon don't count)

2) How do the photons get from being 20 degrees above the horizon, to coming from the horizon? You still haven't answered this basic math principle, instead claiming perspective somehow makes the sun do things that aren't mathematically possible. How does perspective change the direction light come from, and how does it come in at that angle for literally everything?
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 20, 2017, 06:12:08 PM
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer.
Nobody denies that - we all see it happen with our own eyes every day.

I *REALLY* do want to understand what you're trying to convey - and it's not happening.

OK - let's forget all of my diagrams - let's just use words and start with the simplest question of all.  The scenario is thus:

STEP 1: A photon (a small packet of light) undeniably leaves the Sun.   Which FET says is around 3,000 miles above the ground...someplace...I don't even care where that is for now.

STEP 2: It travels rapidly to some other part of the world where there is currently a sunset happening...undeniably.

STEP 3: Finally, undeniably the photon smacks into either a building, a tree or rock or...whatever.

It seems that none of these three things can be denied...right?   If you DO wish to deny one of them, please tell us  which one is incorrect and we can discuss that point until I understand what you're trying to explain to me.

So all I'm asking is for someone to tell me the route the photon took from point A (the Sun) to point B (it's ultimate destination).

That's it!

If the photon travels in a straight line between point A and point B - that's good, we agree.   But if perspective is bending the path of the photon - bouncing the light off of the stratosphere, folding the light beam - tying the light into pretzels - that's fine - just tell me the path the photon traveled along to get from the sun to the point where it lights something up.  If you truly don't know - then that's OK too - just tell us.

Quote
The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

I dispute that - but perhaps there is some confusion of language or something.  Let's set that aside and pretend for now that I agree with you.   But at least answer the question above so we know we're talking about the same things here.

Quote
The phenomenon of perspective squishes everything to the horizon; and trying to represent it on a small scene a few inches across is invalid without artificially doing things like ascending the lands and creating a vanishing point in order to give a proper depiction of perspective.
Again, I dispute that - but again, let us assume for now that you're right so you can cleanly and clearly answer the question above without further distractions.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 07:10:48 PM
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

Quote
1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?

Beneath the sun an observer sees that the sun is above overhead and the light rays are traveling downwards. At sunset the observer sees that the sun is at the horizon; placed there by perspective. The light rays are coming in at 90 degrees from zenith. Perspective has oriented the sun to be in that location.

Quote
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

The photons travel from the horizon to your eye, which is a horizontal path. The cause is a result of how perspective orients itself around you.
1) How? Is the sun physically there? Where is your evidence this will happen the way you describe? (Reminder, the sun and moon don't count)

2) How do the photons get from being 20 degrees above the horizon, to coming from the horizon? You still haven't answered this basic math principle, instead claiming perspective somehow makes the sun do things that aren't mathematically possible. How does perspective change the direction light come from, and how does it come in at that angle for literally everything?

Your "basic math principal" is based on a model which does not accurately account for perspective and does not actually happen except in your erroneous interpretation of the situation.

Perspective works two ways. If you see the sun at the horizon, the sun also sees you at the horizon, and that is where the rays of light will follow -- horizontally to the horizon. Perspective never "changes the direction" of the light. The observer was always at the horizon for the sun and so that is where the light rays will travel.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 20, 2017, 07:27:21 PM
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

Quote
1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?

Beneath the sun an observer sees that the sun is above overhead and the light rays are traveling downwards. At sunset the observer sees that the sun is at the horizon; placed there by perspective. The light rays are coming in at 90 degrees from zenith. Perspective has oriented the sun to be in that location.

Quote
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

The photons travel from the horizon to your eye, which is a horizontal path. The cause is a result of how perspective orients itself around you.
1) How? Is the sun physically there? Where is your evidence this will happen the way you describe? (Reminder, the sun and moon don't count)

2) How do the photons get from being 20 degrees above the horizon, to coming from the horizon? You still haven't answered this basic math principle, instead claiming perspective somehow makes the sun do things that aren't mathematically possible. How does perspective change the direction light come from, and how does it come in at that angle for literally everything?

Your "basic math principal" is based on a model which does not accurately account for perspective and does not actually happen except in your erroneous interpretation of the situation.

Perspective works two ways. If you see the sun at the horizon, the sun also sees you at the horizon, and that is where the rays of light will follow -- horizontally to the horizon. Perspective never "changes the direction" of the light. The observer was always at the horizon for the sun and so that is where the light rays will travel.

Here we go 3D. Tom believes perspective is a fundamental law of nature/the world. :/
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 20, 2017, 07:59:46 PM
I don't think you'll ever be able to get him to agree on this issue. Some folks understand that the type of perspective Tom is talking about here is created in the brain and, from what I can gather, Tom thinks it is an actual physical change in the world. (even though he hasn't come out and said that, it is exactly what he is implying) He is taking ideas like a vanishing point and creating physical constructs around them that can't possibly exist.

Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 08:21:57 PM
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: zp0okii on September 20, 2017, 08:23:47 PM
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?

No, but they do have resolutions.

I am so tired of seeing FET push the law of perspectives when it has been so thoroughly (and easily) debunked. Will post this link for the millionth time leading to the OG thread debunking this "law".

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0

And in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yth2tGZpRQk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POoQHdznfaQ
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 20, 2017, 08:34:54 PM
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?

Glad you brought that up. I was incomplete in my comment. The eye's lens plays a big role in perspective. It makes things that are further away appear smaller.
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature (https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature)
The brain's role is easy to suss out, as well. That giant looking moon or Sun on the horizon is purely a function of your brain "thinking" things on the horizon are closer than things overhead.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 08:50:08 PM
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?

Glad you brought that up. I was incomplete in my comment. The eye's lens plays a big role in perspective. It makes things that are further away appear smaller.
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature (https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature)
The brain's role is easy to suss out, as well. That giant looking moon or Sun on the horizon is purely a function of your brain "thinking" things on the horizon are closer than things overhead.

Cameras which do not have lenses also experience perspective. How do you explain that?
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: mtnman on September 20, 2017, 09:32:09 PM
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

In our vision these lines do meet, at the vanishing point, and an attempt is being made to call this an illusion on the basis of ancient theories of infinity. The need for empirical proof is denied altogether, in favor of "theory".

Your assertion that they never "ACTUALLY" meet if you were to change your position and see the situation from a different perspective is irrelevant. From that position, they DO meet, which implies that the angles eventually merge, that photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once, and it is possible that some may be blocked out if the earth is not perfectly flat and there are any slight imperfections on the surface as the lines merge (sunset).

You are operating under the assumption that perspective is all an illusion, and that there is a greater reality that operates from a theoretical side angle view seen from outside of the universe, where these triangles and conclusions of infinities may be plotted onto a diagram, rather than reality operating in line with the rules of first person perspective observed.

We can see that my assertions on this matter are based in empiricism, on what actually is observed, whereas your assertions are based entirely on ancient theory.

Probably a breach of etiquette to re quote from much earlier in the thread, but I have to comment on this.

Quote
Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

I see "perspective" being used here as a catch-all magic bullet of explanations. Perspective is how you see something, not how it exists.

Read the quote above and picture yourself standing between two long straight railroad tracks. It is really the most simple example possible. Do you see two lines angling towards each other? Yes. Do you see two angles converging? Yes. If the track is long enough and empty, do they appear to converge at a far off point? Yes. That is your perspective. Do they actually ever meet? Of course not. That would make it rather hard on the trains that use them.

Now walk a few dozen feet perpendicular to the tracks, turn and look back at them. Are they still angled towards each other? No. Did the tracks change or move? No, your perspective changed, reality did not.

So since perspective doesn't define the interactions of these things, there are certainly not a bunching of photons around a "vanishing point."
 
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 21, 2017, 01:54:41 AM
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?

Glad you brought that up. I was incomplete in my comment. The eye's lens plays a big role in perspective. It makes things that are further away appear smaller.
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature (https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature)
The brain's role is easy to suss out, as well. That giant looking moon or Sun on the horizon is purely a function of your brain "thinking" things on the horizon are closer than things overhead.

Cameras which do not have lenses also experience perspective. How do you explain that?
A flaw in the way the world is viewed by our eye, and is thus transferred to any optical type equipment we make since we know no other way to see the world. We hardly ever see the world the way the world actually is.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 21, 2017, 02:57:50 AM
I've brought the train track thing up several times before and Tom ignores it. I doubt he will ever admit he is wrong on perspective. If he does, he would be forced to concede that the Earth is round because there is no other way for him to explain the sunset. It is frustrating to read a grown man trying to claim actual physical changes caused by perspective and invent things like "squished photons", but he really doesn't have any option other than to defend it as best he can.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 21, 2017, 03:13:49 AM
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?


Glad you brought that up. I was incomplete in my comment. The eye's lens plays a big role in perspective. It makes things that are further away appear smaller.
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature (https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature)
The brain's role is easy to suss out, as well. That giant looking moon or Sun on the horizon is purely a function of your brain "thinking" things on the horizon are closer than things overhead.

What?!?  Who's side are you on?

Cameras, eyes, pinhole cameras all work the same way!  This is why I can use the pinhole camera argument to try to simplify the explanation.

The only role the brain has in this is that when we see an image with perspective in it, our brains are able to understand that this is due to distance rather than some object actually becoming smaller.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 21, 2017, 03:17:38 AM
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

Quote
1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?

Beneath the sun an observer sees that the sun is above overhead and the light rays are traveling downwards. At sunset the observer sees that the sun is at the horizon; placed there by perspective. The light rays are coming in at 90 degrees from zenith. Perspective has oriented the sun to be in that location.
No - you're not answering what I asked.  Where ACTUALLY is the sun?  The physical location.  Not "where does it appear to be?"   Where is it actually positioned?

Quote
Quote
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

At sunset the photons travel from the horizon to your eye, which is a horizontal path. The cause is a result of how perspective orients itself around you.
That would be true if the sun literally was at the horizon - but we know it isn't because it's not setting fire to the trees.  I agree that it APPEARS to be at the horizon.   But we're not saying that it's literally there because it can't be in two places at once.   It's evidently 3,000 miles above some distant place where it's noontime.

If it can't be in two places at once - then it's PHYSICALLY in one place - but it APPEARS to be in different places for different observers...surely that's what you mean here - right?

Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 21, 2017, 12:43:21 PM
SUMMARY SO FAR:

1) In order for there to be FE sunsets, there has to be some "law" of perspective that is different from the one that applies in the RE universe.   The RE version of how perspective works is simply that light travels in straight lines - and all practical focussing devices are essentially like pinhole cameras.   But in FE, that would prevent the sun from setting.

2) We know (and even Tom agrees) that light travels in straight lines.

3) Tom cannot accept my "pinhole camera" diagram because that would prove that sunsets cannot happen on the Flat Earth...and he cannot allow that to happen.

4) However, that diagram depends on only two things: Both of which we know from FE theory:  (A) That the sun is "really" 3000 miles up and 6000 miles away at sunset - so around 30 degrees above the horizon.   (B) That light travels in straight lines.   Then only this "altered perspective" thing can save the FE.

5) But if we INSIST on knowing how the actual photons travel from the sun to my eye at sunset, then there is a clear problem.  If the light does indeed travel in a straight line, then we can clearly demonstrate that there are no sunsets on the FE.  The fact that clouds are lit from the underside at sunset backs this up and shows that this cannot be some freaky artifact of the human visual system (and cameras!).

Tom understands that he's screwed.   Trust me...he knows this.   So he's now got to deny one of the two fundamental premises that we've set forth:

EITHER:

* The sun is NOT 3,000 miles above the Earth

...OR...

* Light does NOT travel in straight lines.

Since he's on record as saying that he believes light travels in straight lines...all he can now do is to deny the altitude of the sun.

However, we all know the FE sun altitude.

So what's left for him?   Basically to say that perspective PHYSICALLY moves the sun onto the horizon?!?   This seems to kinda be what he's saying.   But, no - that can't be the case - because the sun can't be in two places at once.   We know for sure that it's vertically overhead 6000 miles away at noon in some other time-zone...so how can it also be PHYSICALLY on the horizon where the sunset is happening?   Doesn't make sense.   Also, if the sun was PHYSICALLY on the horizon, then it would set fire to the trees and there would be enormous 30 mile-wide East/West scorch marks across the earth!

So Tom is screwed folks.

He is now repeatedly evading the simple question of where the sun PHYSICALLY is located.

This is a VERY simple question - and he's gone at least four posts trying to avoid directly answering it...which must be because he knows he CANNOT say the words: "The sun is physically 3000 miles up at sunset" without triggering a bulletproof rebuttal of the Flat Earth and everything he stands for.

This is the point where the FE'ers are defeated because their leader cannot answer a simple, straight forward question for fear that he'll screw the pooch.

IN MY OPINION:  If I were an FE'er...I'd be throwing Tom under the bus - saying: "Tom is wrong...the "electromagnetic accelerator" hypothesis is correct...and light doesn't travel in straight lines."

However, Tom is smart enough to understand that we RE'ers are armed to the teeth with arguments that destroy "electromagnetic accelerator" - it's TOTAL hogwash.   That's (presumably) why he dropped it (along with "The Bishop experiment", "The Bishop equation" and "The Bishop constant") in favor of "alternative perspective" ideas.

So - where now FE'ers?   I think you've just met your Waterloo.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: mtnman on September 21, 2017, 03:59:56 PM
I've brought the train track thing up several times before and Tom ignores it. I doubt he will ever admit he is wrong on perspective. If he does, he would be forced to concede that the Earth is round because there is no other way for him to explain the sunset. It is frustrating to read a grown man trying to claim actual physical changes caused by perspective and invent things like "squished photons", but he really doesn't have any option other than to defend it as best he can.

Every time I read his use of perspective to explain everything I thing of this scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2017, 05:16:38 PM
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

Quote
1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?

Beneath the sun an observer sees that the sun is above overhead and the light rays are traveling downwards. At sunset the observer sees that the sun is at the horizon; placed there by perspective. The light rays are coming in at 90 degrees from zenith. Perspective has oriented the sun to be in that location.
No - you're not answering what I asked.  Where ACTUALLY is the sun?  The physical location.  Not "where does it appear to be?"   Where is it actually positioned?

Quote
Quote
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

At sunset the photons travel from the horizon to your eye, which is a horizontal path. The cause is a result of how perspective orients itself around you.
That would be true if the sun literally was at the horizon - but we know it isn't because it's not setting fire to the trees.  I agree that it APPEARS to be at the horizon.   But we're not saying that it's literally there because it can't be in two places at once.   It's evidently 3,000 miles above some distant place where it's noontime.

If it can't be in two places at once - then it's PHYSICALLY in one place - but it APPEARS to be in different places for different observers...surely that's what you mean here - right?

The idea that perspective is changing the orientation of bodies around you is not synonymous with the change of position of the bodies.

Google definitions:

orientation - the determination of the relative position of something or someone
position - a place where someone or something is located or has been put

Perspective changes orientation; which is your determination of relative position, not the position of a body. I've told you several times that it the orientation that is changed.  Could you please look up simple definitions if you come across a word that is beyond you?

Probably a breach of etiquette to re quote from much earlier in the thread, but I have to comment on this.

Quote
Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

I see "perspective" being used here as a catch-all magic bullet of explanations. Perspective is how you see something, not how it exists.

Read the quote above and picture yourself standing between two long straight railroad tracks. It is really the most simple example possible. Do you see two lines angling towards each other? Yes. Do you see two angles converging? Yes. If the track is long enough and empty, do they appear to converge at a far off point? Yes. That is your perspective. Do they actually ever meet? Of course not. That would make it rather hard on the trains that use them.

Now walk a few dozen feet perpendicular to the tracks, turn and look back at them. Are they still angled towards each other? No. Did the tracks change or move? No, your perspective changed, reality did not.

So since perspective doesn't define the interactions of these things, there are certainly not a bunching of photons around a "vanishing point."

I have never claimed that the position of the rail road tracks touch. It is the orientation that touches - your determination of relative position. I have said that it is the orientation numerous times now. Learn to definition.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 21, 2017, 05:16:54 PM
Probably a breach of etiquette to re quote from much earlier in the thread, but I have to comment on this.

Quote
Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

I see "perspective" being used here as a catch-all magic bullet of explanations. Perspective is how you see something, not how it exists.

Read the quote above and picture yourself standing between two long straight railroad tracks. It is really the most simple example possible. Do you see two lines angling towards each other? Yes. Do you see two angles converging? Yes. If the track is long enough and empty, do they appear to converge at a far off point? Yes. That is your perspective. Do they actually ever meet? Of course not. That would make it rather hard on the trains that use them.

Now walk a few dozen feet perpendicular to the tracks, turn and look back at them. Are they still angled towards each other? No. Did the tracks change or move? No, your perspective changed, reality did not.

So since perspective doesn't define the interactions of these things, there are certainly not a bunching of photons around a "vanishing point."

I have never claimed that the position of the rail road tracks touch. It is the orientation that touches - your determination of relative position. I have said that it is the orientation that is changed many times now. Learn to definition.
Correct, but they do two things. They get closer, and they get smaller. Alright, so the sun gets closer to the ground. Fine, we see that happen. But the sun doesn't shrink. You've explained this as some weird 'lensing effect' to my knowledge. Alright, then explain how you know the sun is getting further away. How do you know the laws of perspective change at long distances? Surely you must have some form of proof of this. Because as is your argument basically boils down to "It works this way because I say it does" which isn't very convincing. For that matter...no, let's start with just this one. No reason to give you something to tangent off on. One question, one question only.

How do you know perspective functions as you claim it must, at long distances?

Experimental and repeatable proofs preferred. Neither the Sun nor the Moon can be subjects of the experiment. You can't use the situation in question to prove the situation is correct.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 21, 2017, 05:51:58 PM
Perspective changes orientation; which is your determination of relative position, not the position of a body. I've told you several times that it the orientation that is changed.
this means that, at sunset, the apparent position of the sun is at the horizon, while the actual  position is 3000 miles above it. Correct?
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: mtnman on September 21, 2017, 06:15:39 PM

I have never claimed that the position of the rail road tracks touch. It is the orientation that touches - your determination of relative position. I have said that it is the orientation numerous times now. Learn to definition.
Ok Tom, I am going to quote you again.
Quote
You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

If their approaching and never meeting defies logic, then you are saying logic means they do meet.

Quote
It's the orientation that touches
What does that even mean?

The point is that perspective, or orientation if you prefer, means how you see things. It doesn't mean that perspective is real. If I go outside on a bright sunny day and look up, I might put my hand up to shield my eyes from the sun. When I do that, my hand looks bigger than the sun. But I know it isn't, that's just my perspective.
Title: Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 22, 2017, 07:42:57 PM
The idea that perspective is changing the orientation of bodies around you is not synonymous with the change of position of the bodies.

Google definitions:

orientation - the determination of the relative position of something or someone
position - a place where someone or something is located or has been put

Perspective changes orientation; which is your determination of relative position, not the position of a body. I've told you several times that it the orientation that is changed.  Could you please look up simple definitions if you come across a word that is beyond you?
Errr...I think you're misreading those definitions.  HOWEVER, I do not wish to argue over the definitions of common English words.  I'm happy to adopt whatever meanings you wish to apply to whatever words in the context that you use them.

So you're using the word "orientation" to mean "subjective location" (where our eyes tell us something is) and "position" to mean "physical location" (where a very long tape measure would reveal it to be).

Alright - if you choose those definitions then fine:

TOM: Please tell me the "POSITION" (and **not** the "ORIENTATION") of the Sun when it's sunset here and noon at some distant place on the Earth.


(That's where I believe the sun is drawn in my diagram - but I'm happy to place it somewhere else if I'm incorrect).

* If you disagree about where I placed the sun, then please tell me where it should be.   I want the actual place where the sun really is - where it would be if I measured the position with a really long tape measure.   I don't need exact numbers - you can be an entire order of magnitude wrong - and I'll be OK with that.

* If you disagree about the photons/light-ray from it traveling in a straight line as I've drawn it, then please tell me where the light actually does travel.

I don't think these are difficult questions.