Why do FE'er (Specifically Tom) believe that burden of proof to prove earth is round (And not flat) on RE'er.They don't believe that. They believe that if someone comes here and makes a claim, then the burden of proof is on that person to prove the claim. Just like if I make a claim, the burden is on me to prove that claim. Not that difficult, really.
If FE'er need to convince the whole world that earth is infact FLAT, then it is them who need to provide convincing proofs to the world, as no one is really bothered to even know what FE'er stand for.I don't know of any flat earth proponent here that is trying to convince the whole world that the earth is flat.
If FEer think that the world is disillusioned like movie 'Matrix', then it is them who are to act like 'Neo'/'Morphous'.. otherwise FEer will be forgotten as non-important entity,Have you actually seen The Matrix? You keep suggesting that FE "won't last" or will "be forgotten;" good luck with that, let me know how it turns out.
"Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Bury#On_the_argument_from_ignorance_and_the_burden_of_proof)
That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
But it's not. You have yet to present actual, verifiable evidence that cannot possibly be for anything but a flat Earth. None, zero, zilch, nada.That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
But it's not. You have yet to present actual, verifiable evidence that cannot possibly be for anything but a flat Earth. None, zero, zilch, nada.That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
Incorrect.But it's not. You have yet to present actual, verifiable evidence that cannot possibly be for anything but a flat Earth. None, zero, zilch, nada.That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
False.
I look out of my window and see the sun set knowing my friend to the west of me sees it set later.That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.But Tom, the very website that we are using makes the claim that a FE model is viable. That's what the wiki is all about. So the burden of proof actually lies with you to defend it.
As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.
That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
Rounders continue to throw BS against the wall when in fact their evidence makes no sense at all. If you can't get past Polaris not moving in the sky, then in fact the earth is flat, anchored via foundations as God said. Just because you got a few formulas that can fool the fools doesn't change the fact were living on FLAT.That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
Sounds like you were staring out of the window instead of paying attention in class.
Sorry flatties, the roundies here are correct: you are the ones making ridiculous claims, so it’s on you to provide evidence. You’ve provided 0 evidence, and this has been pointed out to you guys in pretty much every thread.
Rounders continue to throw BS against the wall when in fact their evidence makes no sense at all. If you can't get past Polaris not moving in the sky, then in fact the earth is flat, anchored via foundations as God said. Just because you got a few formulas that can fool the fools doesn't change the fact were living on FLAT.That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
Sounds like you were staring out of the window instead of paying attention in class.
Sorry flatties, the roundies here are correct: you are the ones making ridiculous claims, so it’s on you to provide evidence. You’ve provided 0 evidence, and this has been pointed out to you guys in pretty much every thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E
Rounders continue to throw BS against the wall when in fact their evidence makes no sense at all. If you can't get past Polaris not moving in the sky, then in fact the earth is flat, anchored via foundations as God said. Just because you got a few formulas that can fool the fools doesn't change the fact were living on FLAT.That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
Sounds like you were staring out of the window instead of paying attention in class.
Sorry flatties, the roundies here are correct: you are the ones making ridiculous claims, so it’s on you to provide evidence. You’ve provided 0 evidence, and this has been pointed out to you guys in pretty much every thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E
Everyone: What shape is the Earth?
Eratosthenes et al: It's a sphere, yo
Rowbotham et al: It's flat, dawg
Astronauts et al: We went to space and took pictures (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1576&bih=979&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=earth), amigos, it's definitely a sphere
Flat earth peeps: Nah those are fake, the Earth is flat
Bear in mind that tampering with video is not magic, as it leaves findable, measurable traces. See Captain Disillusion, a youtube channel dedicated to explaining faked videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCtgI2lkFw
(skip to 4:20 for the point)
This is just one of the more direct ways to find that burden of proof is on the Flat Earth Society. If anyone wants to take up an argument about the conspiracy, I suggest starting another thread so this one can stay on topic, which is only who has burden of proof.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim, which is known as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.
We often see Flat Earthers' claiming that the burden of proof is on Round-Earthers to show that the Earth isn't flat
....
I've been back browsing a LOT the past month (the forum is slow and I have too much free time) and I've found one just recently where someone proposed this. The general FE response seemed to boil down to "We've satisfied the burden of proof. Look out your window, the world looks flat. The onus is now on you to conclusively prove it is not, through observational/experimental evidence only."
The problem being, as I pointed out in my earlier thread that sits there with no replies, their FE 'proof' is actually rather lacking when one digs into it. Their main pillar (it *looks* flat) doesn't hold up all across the globe. The rest is essentially unsupported claims. I would argue that if RE presented the equivalent of ENaG, we'd be told it wasn't proof of a round Earth. Yet they seem to cling to it for some reason, despite it being no more 'zetetic' to do so, than to believe other sources.
As far as 'status quo is their own belief system' someone on the other forum summed that up the best (paraphrased, and I must admit to recently beginning to suspect troll, but no one else would argue it) when he said "The Earth is flat. Sunsets happen. Therefore sunsets are not impossible on a flat Earth." What does one say to that?
I've been back browsing a LOT the past month (the forum is slow and I have too much free time) and I've found one just recently where someone proposed this. The general FE response seemed to boil down to "We've satisfied the burden of proof. Look out your window, the world looks flat. The onus is now on you to conclusively prove it is not, through observational/experimental evidence only."
The problem being, as I pointed out in my earlier thread that sits there with no replies, their FE 'proof' is actually rather lacking when one digs into it. Their main pillar (it *looks* flat) doesn't hold up all across the globe. The rest is essentially unsupported claims. I would argue that if RE presented the equivalent of ENaG, we'd be told it wasn't proof of a round Earth. Yet they seem to cling to it for some reason, despite it being no more 'zetetic' to do so, than to believe other sources.
As far as 'status quo is their own belief system' someone on the other forum summed that up the best (paraphrased, and I must admit to recently beginning to suspect troll, but no one else would argue it) when he said "The Earth is flat. Sunsets happen. Therefore sunsets are not impossible on a flat Earth." What does one say to that?
The idea that sunsets are not possible is based on an Ancient Greek theoretical model on how perspective lines should behave at long distances. The Ancient Greeks never actually demonstrated that parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity. No evidence has been provided for that.
The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.
No, you are claiming (as you have been since day 1 on this subject) that math and equations that work for ALL TESTABLE DISTANCES suddenly break down past a certain distance for reasons. You have zero evidence for it, you have zero proof that it happens, you simply assume it must because the earth is flat and sunsets happen, therefore sunsets can happen on a flat Earth. I've shown you in another thread how the math for perspective works out properly for your railroad tracks.I've been back browsing a LOT the past month (the forum is slow and I have too much free time) and I've found one just recently where someone proposed this. The general FE response seemed to boil down to "We've satisfied the burden of proof. Look out your window, the world looks flat. The onus is now on you to conclusively prove it is not, through observational/experimental evidence only."
The problem being, as I pointed out in my earlier thread that sits there with no replies, their FE 'proof' is actually rather lacking when one digs into it. Their main pillar (it *looks* flat) doesn't hold up all across the globe. The rest is essentially unsupported claims. I would argue that if RE presented the equivalent of ENaG, we'd be told it wasn't proof of a round Earth. Yet they seem to cling to it for some reason, despite it being no more 'zetetic' to do so, than to believe other sources.
As far as 'status quo is their own belief system' someone on the other forum summed that up the best (paraphrased, and I must admit to recently beginning to suspect troll, but no one else would argue it) when he said "The Earth is flat. Sunsets happen. Therefore sunsets are not impossible on a flat Earth." What does one say to that?
The idea that sunsets are not possible is based on an Ancient Greek theoretical model on how perspective lines should behave at long distances. The Ancient Greeks never actually demonstrated that parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity. No evidence has been provided for that model.
The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.
No, you are claiming (as you have been since day 1 on this subject) that math and equations that work for ALL TESTABLE DISTANCES suddenly break down past a certain distance for reasons. You have zero evidence for it, you have zero proof that it happens, you simply assume it must because the earth is flat and sunsets happen, therefore sunsets can happen on a flat Earth. I've shown you in another thread how the math for perspective works out properly for your railroad tracks.
The laws of sine, cosine, and tangent are empirical to all easily testable distances. It is on YOU to show where, how, and why they break down. Not just claim "Oh, you haven't tested it at these distances so obviously they don't work." This is how the burden of proof actually works.
The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.
The World Geodetic System (WGS) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and navigation including GPS. It comprises a standard coordinate system for the Earth, a standard spheroidal reference surface (the datum or reference ellipsoid) for raw altitude data, and a gravitational equipotential surface (the geoid) that defines the nominal sea level.
You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested.
also, what?You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested.
this is made up from whole cloth! nothing in CS's comment remotely resembles anything like what you're spewing here
garbage tactics from a garbage debater
Sure Tom, let's go measure something at infinite distance. Anyone see a problem with that?
Please show us where anyone has demonstrated that the perspective lines will infinitely approach each other but never touch. If you cannot do that then the idea is little more than an unsupported hypothesis.
Curious Squirrel has given us an unsupported hypothesis and has asserted that it proves an empirical observation wrong.
Gonna stop you there. We know and can show where and why *perspective* lines meet. I've done this in another thread. Perspective lines =\= parallel lines. Stop talking like they are. Parallel lines will never meet. Perspective lines is a nonsense phrase. Two parallel lines will appear to meet due to the angular limit of our eyes at a measurable and predictable distance. They do not actually meet. The math says parallel lines will never meet (and indeed that's the very definition of the phrase) but perspective will show them getting closer as the relative angle between them decreases, and eventually allow them to appear to touch as our eye can no longer distinguish one line from the other. We know and can predict where this occurs.also, what?You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested.
this is made up from whole cloth! nothing in CS's comment remotely resembles anything like what you're spewing here
garbage tactics from a garbage debater
Please show us where anyone has demonstrated that the perspective lines will infinitely approach each other but never touch. If you cannot do that then the idea is little more than an unsupported hypothesis.
Curious Squirrel has given us an unsupported hypothesis and has asserted that it proves an empirical observation wrong.
also, what?You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested.
this is made up from whole cloth! nothing in CS's comment remotely resembles anything like what you're spewing here
garbage tactics from a garbage debater
Please show us where anyone has demonstrated that the perspective lines will infinitely approach each other but never touch. If you cannot do that then the idea is little more than an unsupported hypothesis.
Curious Squirrel has given us an unsupported hypothesis and has asserted that it proves an empirical observation wrong.
But it's not. You have yet to present actual, verifiable evidence that cannot possibly be for anything but a flat Earth. None, zero, zilch, nada.That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.
The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.
Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
False.
How does this work, let me try it: "Please refrain from low information posts on the upper fora."No, you did not do it right. It isn't low-content when it is a complete and truthful answer. I hope I was able to clear that up for you.
Did I do that right?
But if you're just going to say "False" and not even link to anything helpful then you might as well stay silent.No, that is okay. I will continue to point out false claims as I see fit.
You can also choose to ignore the entire concept of a focussed image - and just look at the path the photons must be taking to get from the sun, through the branches of a tree on the horizon and into my eye:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Sunrise.png)
In this diagram, the blue line is the straight line path that the photons MUST be taking to get from the sun to my eyes...and the pink line is the line that they'd have to take if the sun was really on the horizon. Since we agree that photons travel in straight lines, the pink line cannot be the correct one.
Hence flat earth sunrises and sunsets cannot happen - and the Earth is round.
So either way - there is not getting out of this trap.
Tom - it's time for you to give this one up. None of the other FE'ers are coming to your rescue here.
At this point you either have to admit that the Earth is round - or drop your claim for photons travelling in straight lines...which essentially means a return to the Electromagnetic Accelerator idea...which does actually fix this problem. If light bends into a curve (as the EA theory claims) - then the photons can drop nearly vertically downwards from the sun in a gentle curve that skims the horizon and touches my eyes.
With EA - you can have sunsets on a flat earth - but you have to give up photons travelling in straight lines - and that's a BIG problem as I can prove if you do indeed return to that argument.
But magic perspective doesn't work...it fails the test of Euclidean geometry.
You can also choose to ignore the entire concept of a focussed image - and just look at the path the photons must be taking to get from the sun, through the branches of a tree on the horizon and into my eye:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Sunrise.png)
In this diagram, the blue line is the straight line path that the photons MUST be taking to get from the sun to my eyes...and the pink line is the line that they'd have to take if the sun was really on the horizon. Since we agree that photons travel in straight lines, the pink line cannot be the correct one.
Hence flat earth sunrises and sunsets cannot happen - and the Earth is round.
So either way - there is not getting out of this trap.
Tom - it's time for you to give this one up. None of the other FE'ers are coming to your rescue here.
At this point you either have to admit that the Earth is round - or drop your claim for photons travelling in straight lines...which essentially means a return to the Electromagnetic Accelerator idea...which does actually fix this problem. If light bends into a curve (as the EA theory claims) - then the photons can drop nearly vertically downwards from the sun in a gentle curve that skims the horizon and touches my eyes.
With EA - you can have sunsets on a flat earth - but you have to give up photons travelling in straight lines - and that's a BIG problem as I can prove if you do indeed return to that argument.
But magic perspective doesn't work...it fails the test of Euclidean geometry.
And where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as predicted by that ancient greek model?
I think the burden of proof is on you, good sir. You are claiming that they will eventually touch. Have you ever seen this or have evidence.
I think the burden of proof is on you, good sir. You are claiming that they will eventually touch. Have you ever seen this or have evidence.
Railroad tracks will seem to touch at the horizon, and the fact that things are able touch the horizon at all demonstrates that the perspective lines appear to merge.
Empirical observation vs. ancient mathematical hypothesis. You need to show that it is all an illusion. Go.
I think the burden of proof is on you, good sir. You are claiming that they will eventually touch. Have you ever seen this or have evidence.
Railroad tracks will seem to touch at the horizon, and the fact that things are able touch the horizon at all demonstrates that the perspective lines appear to merge.
Empirical observation vs. ancient mathematical hypothesis. You need to show that it is all an illusion. Go.
Easy - send a train down the tracks. Does the train magically shrink? Does it jump the tracks? No? Well then, the tracks never ACTUALLY get any closer. If you claim they ACTUALLY get closer, you need to prove that.
I think the burden of proof is on you, good sir. You are claiming that they will eventually touch. Have you ever seen this or have evidence.
Railroad tracks will seem to touch at the horizon, and the fact that things are able touch the horizon at all demonstrates that the perspective lines appear to merge.
Empirical observation vs. ancient mathematical hypothesis. You need to show that it is all an illusion. Go.
Easy - send a train down the tracks. Does the train magically shrink? Does it jump the tracks? No? Well then, the tracks never ACTUALLY get any closer. If you claim they ACTUALLY get closer, you need to prove that.
Where did I say any of that? Perspective affects the orientation of bodies, not the position of bodies. Perspective lines cause things to shrink in their orientation. There is no argument about. Perspective lines also cause things to merge together in their orientation, which there does seem to be some objection to.
You will need to show some kind of evidence that the apparent merging is not a property of perspective and that the perspective lines actually approach each other for infinity.
Tom, you are making the claim that perspective lines merge. The onus is on you to prove your claim. I've never seen, nor have I seen a picture of, train tracks merging. You asked me to prove it was an illusion, so I did. Orientation is the relative position of objects. If orientation is changed, position has to change. Position is literally in the definition.
Tom, you are making the claim that perspective lines merge. The onus is on you to prove your claim. I've never seen, nor have I seen a picture of, train tracks merging. You asked me to prove it was an illusion, so I did. Orientation is the relative position of objects. If orientation is changed, position has to change. Position is literally in the definition.
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.
Any perspective representation of a scene that includes parallel lines has one or more vanishing points in a perspective drawing. A one-point perspective drawing means that the drawing has a single vanishing point, usually (though not necessarily) directly opposite the viewer's eye and usually (though not necessarily) on the horizon line. All lines parallel with the viewer's line of sight recede to the horizon towards this vanishing point. This is the standard "receding railroad tracks" phenomenon. A two-point drawing would have lines parallel to two different angles. Any number of vanishing points are possible in a drawing, one for each set of parallel lines that are at an angle relative to the plane of the drawing.
...
A drawing has one-point perspective when it contains only one vanishing point on the horizon line. This type of perspective is typically used for images of roads, railway tracks, hallways, or buildings viewed so that the front is directly facing the viewer. Any objects that are made up of lines either directly parallel with the viewer's line of sight or directly perpendicular (the railroad slats) can be represented with one-point perspective. These parallel lines converge at the vanishing point.
One-point perspective exists when the picture plane is parallel to two axes of a rectilinear (or Cartesian) scene – a scene which is composed entirely of linear elements that intersect only at right angles. If one axis is parallel with the picture plane, then all elements are either parallel to the picture plane (either horizontally or vertically) or perpendicular to it. All elements that are parallel to the picture plane are drawn as parallel lines. All elements that are perpendicular to the picture plane converge at a single point (a vanishing point) on the horizon. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical))
Your words, as you know, make no sense. 'seem to touch'?I think the burden of proof is on you, good sir. You are claiming that they will eventually touch. Have you ever seen this or have evidence.
Railroad tracks will seem to touch at the horizon, and the fact that things are able touch the horizon at all demonstrates that the perspective lines appear to merge. Under the Elucid model it should be impossible for any body to ever get to the horizon.
Empirical observation vs. ancient mathematical hypothesis. You need to show that it is all an illusion. Go.
And where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?
If they do touch at some distance, then your diagram will look a whole lot different.
The fundamental premise of this continuous universe model needs empirical evidence behind it -- things to suggest that is how it is in the real world.
BTW, this is another strawman, just in case you didn't get that above. Perspective lines have no part in Euclidean geometry. Parallel lines will never meet. They will appear to 'meet' at the point which our eyes can no longer distinguish the angular distance between them. Roughly 0.02 degrees. Now clearly things can get in the way, but you need to explain how a sun that should still be 20 degrees above the horizon, is appearing at 0 degrees.I think the burden of proof is on you, good sir. You are claiming that they will eventually touch. Have you ever seen this or have evidence.
Railroad tracks will seem to touch at the horizon, and the fact that things are able touch the horizon at all demonstrates that the perspective lines appear to merge. Under the Elucid model it should be impossible for any body to ever get to the horizon.
Empirical observation vs. ancient mathematical hypothesis. You need to show that it is all an illusion. Go.
Tom likes to say that Euclid's ideas are hypothetical: They are not.
Tom,
The fundamental issue that you seem to not understand, is Euclidean geometry doesn't have anything to do with perspective. Euclidean geometry describes where something is. We can use that geometry along with a location to even determine where and when things will happen according to perspective and the angular limit of the eye. As I showed you in the other thread. But what perspective doesn't do is change the physical angle of objects.
QuoteAnd where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?
This is a strawman. Euclidean geometry says nothing of the sort. It says parallel lines will never meet. Which they won't, or they wouldn't be parallel. It doesn't deal with your 'perspective lines' at all. It describes the location of something relative to another thing, and it's testably accurate at ANY distance you care to name that is physically measurable.
Your parallel lines will never touch though. They will seem to touch because of the angular limit of the eye
Once again, if you wish to say the sun appears to be at 0 degrees, when the math says it's at 20 degrees then you must present one of the following:
A) Proof that the math no longer works accurately beyond 'X' Miles/KM.
B) Proof that the math doesn't work in the real world, contrary to the proofs done upon it since Euclids time.
C) Evidence that the sun is somehow 'special' and immune to this mathematical law.
BTW, this is another strawman, just in case you didn't get that above. Perspective lines have no part in Euclidean geometry. Parallel lines will never meet. They will appear to 'meet' at the point which our eyes can no longer distinguish the angular distance between them. Roughly 0.02 degrees. Now clearly things can get in the way, but you need to explain how a sun that should still be 20 degrees above the horizon, is appearing at 0 degrees.
Your understanding of the word perspective is very strsnge. There is no such thing as a perspective model.Quote from: xenotoleranceTom likes to say that Euclid's ideas are hypothetical: They are not.
Where is the real world evidence for these infinitely-approaching perspective lines, then?Tom,
The fundamental issue that you seem to not understand, is Euclidean geometry doesn't have anything to do with perspective. Euclidean geometry describes where something is. We can use that geometry along with a location to even determine where and when things will happen according to perspective and the angular limit of the eye. As I showed you in the other thread. But what perspective doesn't do is change the physical angle of objects.
Perspective changes the orientation angle of railroad tracks below your feet and brings them up to the level of your eye. It has caused the railroad tracks to be at the level of your eye when the railroad tracks are only a couple of inches from the ground: A clear example of change of orientation.Quote from: Curious SquirrelQuoteAnd where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?
This is a strawman. Euclidean geometry says nothing of the sort. It says parallel lines will never meet. Which they won't, or they wouldn't be parallel. It doesn't deal with your 'perspective lines' at all. It describes the location of something relative to another thing, and it's testably accurate at ANY distance you care to name that is physically measurable.
We see that railroad tracks meet at the horizon. What kind of real world evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?QuoteYour parallel lines will never touch though. They will seem to touch because of the angular limit of the eye
Do you have any evidence for that? The railroad tracks also meet in a wide angle lens, or even with lens-less cameras.QuoteOnce again, if you wish to say the sun appears to be at 0 degrees, when the math says it's at 20 degrees then you must present one of the following:
A) Proof that the math no longer works accurately beyond 'X' Miles/KM.
B) Proof that the math doesn't work in the real world, contrary to the proofs done upon it since Euclids time.
C) Evidence that the sun is somehow 'special' and immune to this mathematical law.
What you have is MATH. What I have is empirical observation. Your math only works under the model it is intended for. If the assumptions of the underlying model changes, or is wrong, the math does not work.
2 + 2 = 4 relies on the underlying model, and is not a universal truth. Under some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4. See Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html).
All math relies on the underlying model for it to have truth. You need to prove that your underlying model for perspective lines is valid. That is your claim. You are the claimant. I am the skeptic. I am not going to prove a negative. You need to prove your positive. My position on this subject is backed by empirical observation, while yours relies on ancient hypothetical models. So get proving already. Demonstrate that your perspective model is founded in the real world.QuoteBTW, this is another strawman, just in case you didn't get that above. Perspective lines have no part in Euclidean geometry. Parallel lines will never meet. They will appear to 'meet' at the point which our eyes can no longer distinguish the angular distance between them. Roughly 0.02 degrees. Now clearly things can get in the way, but you need to explain how a sun that should still be 20 degrees above the horizon, is appearing at 0 degrees.
Wrong. You need to explain why we need to assume that perspective lines will never meet when this has never been observed.
You will need to show some kind of evidence that the apparent merging is not a property of perspective and that the perspective lines actually approach each other for infinity.
Wrong. You need to explain why we need to assume that perspective lines will never meet when this has never been observed.
You will need to show some kind of evidence that the apparent merging is not a property of perspective and that the perspective lines actually approach each other for infinity.
Tom this reads like you are suggesting that unless someone proves that the railway tracks continue to "appear to converge" for infinity you are not going to accept any further debate on this. Are you suggesting that someone needs to physically follow a pair of railway tracks for infinity to ensure that they do not ever actually meet?
Wrong. You need to explain why we need to assume that perspective lines will never meet when this has never been observed.
It is observed every day Tom. Train tracks always appear to meet in the distance and yet they never do, we know they never do and we can see that they always appear to. This does not need any further proof, it is a very safe assumption to hold as it is one we see bear out every day.
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.
This Tom, is London Road rail station in Leicester, as we can see the tracks seem to converge before they even leave the station, however they do not
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.
You will need a real world demonstration that your model for perspective is accurate.
And where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?
If they do touch at some distance, then your diagram will look a whole lot different. The fundamental premise of this continuous universe model needs empirical evidence behind it -- things to suggest that is how it is in the real world. It is only backed by math which assumes a hypothetical model, and this is wholly insufficient.But they don't touch at any finite distance...and they don't literally touch in the real world at all...only in images that are focussed.
We have one. We are showing it to you with the railway tracks. They are in the real world, they appear to converge due to perspective but by getting onto the train and following them we can be sure that this is only due to perspective as they do not converge in reality.
When looking ahead the tracks in the distance still appear to converge in the distance and yet sure enough the train passes the point where they appeared to meet and they have not met. This continues the entire journey. How can this not be considered a real world model?
And where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?
May I suggest you go back and actually READ my post? The pinhole camera demonstrates the geometry - from that we can use similar triangles to turn this into algebra - and then we can try sticking some numbers in there to try to get Hsubject to be zero. When you do that - the ONLY way to get the sun onto the flat earth horizon is to have Dsubject to be infinity. This is another way of saying "parallel lines appear to touch at an infinite distance from the eye". (They don't literally touch no matter how far away you are.) This is PROOF that the vanishing point is at infinity.QuoteIf they do touch at some distance, then your diagram will look a whole lot different. The fundamental premise of this continuous universe model needs empirical evidence behind it -- things to suggest that is how it is in the real world. It is only backed by math which assumes a hypothetical model, and this is wholly insufficient.But they don't touch at any finite distance...and they don't literally touch in the real world at all...only in images that are focussed.
There is nothing of the "continuous universe" in here - it's simple grade-school geometry and algebra.
But if you're now denying that mathematics can address the real world - then you have truly entered a world where only magic applies. Perhaps this is a good place for you to exist - beyond the realms of reality where logic and reason cannot assail you.
Most of us would call that "insanity"...but if that's your choice, then maybe we shouldn't be listening to your ravings any longer.
What you have is MATH. What I have is empirical observation. Your math only works under the model it is intended for. If the assumptions of the underlying model changes, or is wrong, the math does not work.
2 + 2 = 4 relies on the underlying model, and is not a universal truth. Under some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4. See Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html).
All math relies on the underlying model for it to have truth. You need to prove that your underlying model for perspective lines is valid. That is your claim. You are the claimant. I am the skeptic. I am not going to prove a negative. You need to prove your positive. My position on this subject is backed by empirical observation, while yours relies on ancient hypothetical models. So get proving already. Demonstrate that your perspective model is founded in the real world.
'Perspective lines' is an art phrase Tom. They appear to approach until the resolving power of whatever you're using can no longer tell the difference. Which I showed you in the other thread we can predict when/where that happens using math. I even provided the proof using your favorite railroad track example.Quote from: xenotoleranceTom likes to say that Euclid's ideas are hypothetical: They are not.
Where is the real world evidence for these infinitely-approaching perspective lines, then?
Still hasn't changed the actual location of those objects has it? So I'm not sure what you could possibly be arguing for here.Tom,
The fundamental issue that you seem to not understand, is Euclidean geometry doesn't have anything to do with perspective. Euclidean geometry describes where something is. We can use that geometry along with a location to even determine where and when things will happen according to perspective and the angular limit of the eye. As I showed you in the other thread. But what perspective doesn't do is change the physical angle of objects.
Perspective changes the orientation angle of railroad tracks below your feet and brings them up to the level of your eye. It has caused the railroad tracks to be at the level of your eye when the railroad tracks are only a couple of inches from the ground: A clear example of change of orientation.
I've already shown you how the math bares out that railroad tracks will 'appear' to meet roughly at the horizon. So you're attacking something I'm not claiming here at all.Quote from: Curious SquirrelQuoteAnd where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?
This is a strawman. Euclidean geometry says nothing of the sort. It says parallel lines will never meet. Which they won't, or they wouldn't be parallel. It doesn't deal with your 'perspective lines' at all. It describes the location of something relative to another thing, and it's testably accurate at ANY distance you care to name that is physically measurable.
We see that railroad tracks meet at the horizon. What kind of real world evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?
Yes, and they will do so for the same reason with a camera as for an eye. Geometry can tell us when the angle reaches the point that the device can no longer distinguish between the two of them. As I showed you before.QuoteYour parallel lines will never touch though. They will seem to touch because of the angular limit of the eye
Do you have any evidence for that? The railroad tracks also meet in a wide angle lens, or even with lens-less cameras.
The math bears out the real world observations, every time the distance is measurable. I showed you that with the railroad tracks, that the math predicted they will appear to meet to the eye, at the point they are observed to do so. You're the one claiming it doesn't. Give me an example, and I can test the math against it to show you it works once again if you wish.QuoteOnce again, if you wish to say the sun appears to be at 0 degrees, when the math says it's at 20 degrees then you must present one of the following:
A) Proof that the math no longer works accurately beyond 'X' Miles/KM.
B) Proof that the math doesn't work in the real world, contrary to the proofs done upon it since Euclids time.
C) Evidence that the sun is somehow 'special' and immune to this mathematical law.
What you have is MATH. What I have is empirical observation. Your math only works under the model it is intended for. If the assumptions of the underlying model changes, or is wrong, the math does not work.
2 + 2 = 4 relies on the underlying model, and is not a universal truth. Under some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4. See Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html).
All math relies on the underlying model for it to have truth. You need to prove that your underlying model for perspective lines is valid. That is your claim. You are the claimant. I am the skeptic. I am not going to prove a negative. You need to prove your positive. My position on this subject is backed by empirical observation, while yours relies on ancient hypothetical models. So get proving already. Demonstrate that your perspective model is founded in the real world.
I've never, ever said 'perspective lines' will never meet. I've said parallel lines will never physically meet (true) but they can appear to meet due to perspective. Note how perspective lines are never mentioned. Stop strawmanning. What you are saying here is utter nonsense, because it claims that two parallel lines will physically meet at the point observed. Which you and I both know doesn't happen (we both do, don't we?) so stop conflating your imaginary 'perspective lines' with parallel lines. They are not the same meaning.QuoteBTW, this is another strawman, just in case you didn't get that above. Perspective lines have no part in Euclidean geometry. Parallel lines will never meet. They will appear to 'meet' at the point which our eyes can no longer distinguish the angular distance between them. Roughly 0.02 degrees. Now clearly things can get in the way, but you need to explain how a sun that should still be 20 degrees above the horizon, is appearing at 0 degrees.
Wrong. You need to explain why we need to assume that perspective lines will never meet when this has never been observed.
Yes, the model assumes the lines will never physically touch in the real world. And if we have infinite resolving power, we would see that. We don't, so we must take the limits of the human eye into account. These match up with real world observations EVERY TIME. As I showed you with the railroad tracks. So please, show an example that the math (taking into account the resolution limits of the lens in use) does NOT match what is seen. I dare you. (Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon, nor anything that goes through the sky can be used as an example, for doing so is you begging the question. NOTHING that relies on the Earth being flat to be a proof is admissible.)And where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?
May I suggest you go back and actually READ my post? The pinhole camera demonstrates the geometry - from that we can use similar triangles to turn this into algebra - and then we can try sticking some numbers in there to try to get Hsubject to be zero. When you do that - the ONLY way to get the sun onto the flat earth horizon is to have Dsubject to be infinity. This is another way of saying "parallel lines appear to touch at an infinite distance from the eye". (They don't literally touch no matter how far away you are.) This is PROOF that the vanishing point is at infinity.QuoteIf they do touch at some distance, then your diagram will look a whole lot different. The fundamental premise of this continuous universe model needs empirical evidence behind it -- things to suggest that is how it is in the real world. It is only backed by math which assumes a hypothetical model, and this is wholly insufficient.But they don't touch at any finite distance...and they don't literally touch in the real world at all...only in images that are focussed.
There is nothing of the "continuous universe" in here - it's simple grade-school geometry and algebra.
But if you're now denying that mathematics can address the real world - then you have truly entered a world where only magic applies. Perhaps this is a good place for you to exist - beyond the realms of reality where logic and reason cannot assail you.
Most of us would call that "insanity"...but if that's your choice, then maybe we shouldn't be listening to your ravings any longer.
Math does not prove the nature of perspective lines. That math is only valid if certain assumptions made about that underlying model are true.You are using math under a model which assumes that the perspective lines are continuous.
The track appear to converge. Tom, do you think the railroad tracks actually meet?
Perspective changes the orientation angle of railroad tracks below your feet and brings them up to the level of your eye. It has caused the railroad tracks to be at the level of your eye when the railroad tracks are only a couple of inches from the ground: A clear example of change of orientation.
...
We see that railroad tracks meet at the horizon. What kind of real world evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?QuoteYour parallel lines will never touch though. They will seem to touch because of the angular limit of the eye
Do you have any evidence for that? The railroad tracks also meet in a wide angle lens, or even with lens-less cameras.
The simple proposal here - to advance the discussion - is to dispose of images and projections and simply talk about the paths of light rays in the REAL WORLD.Oh, I know this one. His diagram in the other thread explains it clearly. He thinks perspective is an intrinsic property of the world that everything is affected by.
So here's the scenario - let me paint a pretty picture for a moment. This is all about the ACTUAL locations of things...nothing else.
I'm facing towards the sunset - with my eyes closed - blindfolded. We've banned all cameras, telescopes, pinholes, lenses and microscopes from the scene to avoid any risk of perspective entering into the discussion.
It's a cool fall day with a clear sky but the sun is hot. But there is a *big* mountain on the western horizon - it's six miles away and it's HUGE! It's a MILE HIGH and the sun is setting behind it. We know that in some distant city off to the west (which we're going to say is 6,000 miles away for the sake of keeping the math easy) the sun is vertically overhead - and Flat Earthers tell me it's 3,000 miles up in the sky and the Earth is FLAT.
I should be standing in the shadow of the mountain. The mountain is clearly blocking 100% of light from the sun...I don't feel the sun's warmth on my face at all. We should all be able to agree on that. If I cheated and peeked out from under my blindfold, I'd see it had set - but I'm not going to cheat.
Let's follow one of the photons coming out of the sun. Remember - we're not talking about images AT ALL - all eyes are blindfolded - all cameras are banned - there is just me, the mountain and the sun. This is just about where the photon goes in reality...just like where the train goes down the train tracks IN REALITY.
The photon starts out at 3,000 miles up and 6,000 miles away from my head at noon in some remote place - then, (as we agree) it travels in a straight line:
Simple geometry of straight lines says:
* Halfway to my head - the photon would be 1,500 miles up and 3,000 miles away.
* 90% of the way it would be 300 miles up and 600 miles away.
* 99% of the way it would be 30 miles up and 60 miles away
* 99.9% of the way - it would be 3 miles up and 6 miles away. <==== REMEMBER THIS!
* ...and then it's 3 feet above my head and 6 feet away.
* ...and finally, it's zero feet above my head and zero feet away. The photon hits my skin and gives up it's tiny packet of energy - and along with the trillions of others that followed the same route - it warms my face most pleasantly.
That's what the straight line path of the photon from the sun to my head is.
If the horizon was 6 miles away - and the photon crossed the horizon at an altitude of 3 miles - and COMPLETELY MISSED the mile high mountain!
But hold on a moment! Didn't the sun just set behind the mountain? I should be in it's shadow...but somehow I'm not! I'm feeling the sun's rays on my face!
Since we just established that the photon missed the mountain on the horizon COMPLETELY...and not by a little bit - it zoomed over it at a height of 3 miles...how is this happening?
I take off the blindfold - the sun is CLEARLY behind the mountain - but I can still feel it's rays warming my face?
This is impossible - by that's what this Flat Earth hypothesis is saying must be happening.
So - even without images - without eyes or anything that could remotely have ANYTHING to do with perspective...the sun should not be able to be blocked by the mountain and therefore didn't "set".
How on EARTH are you going to get around THAT one Tom?
Oh, I know this one. His diagram in the other thread explains it clearly. He thinks perspective is an intrinsic property of the world that everything is affected by.
This is my theory at this point on Tom's position (if I'm wrong I would of course love for him to explain precisely where/how): All objects experience perspective. It's a natural law/property of the universe. As such, Euclid's "infinite universe" doesn't exist because lines meet at a distance before infinity for ALL objects perspective lines. As well, only your personal experience is relevant. For all intents and purposes "out of sight, out of mind" applies to objects in 'your' universe too. This explains how the sunset happens every day, because from the Suns PoV you have vanished due to perspective.
How'd I do? Please tell me you need to correct some things in here, because some parts are a little crazy on purpose.
Perspective is how the world shows itself to us, and is dependant on the observer.
Oh, I know this one. His diagram in the other thread explains it clearly. He thinks perspective is an intrinsic property of the world that everything is affected by.
This is my theory at this point on Tom's position (if I'm wrong I would of course love for him to explain precisely where/how): All objects experience perspective. It's a natural law/property of the universe. As such, Euclid's "infinite universe" doesn't exist because lines meet at a distance before infinity for ALL objects perspective lines. As well, only your personal experience is relevant. For all intents and purposes "out of sight, out of mind" applies to objects in 'your' universe too. This explains how the sunset happens every day, because from the Suns PoV you have vanished due to perspective.
How'd I do? Please tell me you need to correct some things in here, because some parts are a little crazy on purpose.
A little further up this thread, Tom said:QuotePerspective is how the world shows itself to us, and is dependant on the observer.
We can remove the observer from my example above and simply stick a photocell onto a pole in the ground - then there is STILL a problem with FE sunsets.
If Tom can't accept that I've eliminated all trace of perspective from the debate - then this is tacit admission (as I've maintained all along) that "Perspective" is simply a code-word meaning "Magic". He's already denied that mathematics, geometry and diagrams "work". God alone knows what other crazy stuff we can provoke him into saying. It's becoming a new game for me! "How much of obvious reality can we get Tom to deny?"
Quote from: xenotoleranceTom likes to say that Euclid's ideas are hypothetical: They are not.
Where is the real world evidence for these infinitely-approaching perspective lines, then?
Or, in brief: Yes, the burden of proof is on the claimant... and in this case, the claimant is you. Imagine a parable...
A chancellor of the court announces that given new observations, it is conclusive that water is less dense than air! A courtier says that it obviously is not. The chancellor says, "When you come to this court and start making claims, I expect that you work to demonstrate your claims."
And, by the way, there exists easily accessible proof that the Earth is a sphere. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7009.msg127450#msg127450) If you want to say otherwise, you have to prove that space travel is fake - not the other way around, where you presume the Earth is flat therefore space travel must be faked.
so yeah, all of this junk about perspective is missing the point anyway. get busy proving your conspiracy theory, or get busy shutting the fuck up
What you have is MATH. What I have is empirical observation. Your math only works under the model it is intended for. If the assumptions of the underlying model changes, or is wrong, the math does not work.
2 + 2 = 4 relies on the underlying model, and is not a universal truth. Under some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4. See Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html).
All math relies on the underlying model for it to have truth. You need to prove that your underlying model for perspective lines is valid.
I admit, I cannot conceive of a "situation" that would make 2 + 2 = 4 false. (There are redefinitions, but those are not "situations", and then you're no longer talking about 2, 4, =, or +.) But that doesn't make my belief unconditional. I find it quite easy to imagine a situation which would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3.
Suppose I got up one morning, and took out two earplugs, and set them down next to two other earplugs on my nighttable, and noticed that there were now three earplugs, without any earplugs having appeared or disappeared—in contrast to my stored memory that 2 + 2 was supposed to equal 4. Moreover, when I visualized the process in my own mind, it seemed that making XX and XX come out to XXXX required an extra X to appear from nowhere, and was, moreover, inconsistent with other arithmetic I visualized, since subtracting XX from XXX left XX, but subtracting XX from XXXX left XXX. This would conflict with my stored memory that 3 - 2 = 1, but memory would be absurd in the face of physical and mental confirmation that XXX - XX = XX.
...
What would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3, in other words, is exactly the same kind of evidence that currently convinces me that 2 + 2 = 4: The evidential crossfire of physical observation, mental visualization, and social agreement.
The idea that sunsets are not possible is based on an Ancient Greek theoretical model on how perspective lines should behave at long distances. The Ancient Greeks never actually demonstrated that parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch. No evidence has been provided for that perspective model.
The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality.
What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.
That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?
Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?
Clearly not!
We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.
So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved? ???
The earth is round and if anyone thinks otherwise they need to see a doctor to check for something.
to be honest im just trying to get banned
*Everything* is an observer in Tom's "model". Your shirt, the sun, the moon. Everything. At least from my understanding.
The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.
(https://i.imgur.com/WDmYgHT.png)
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
*Everything* is an observer in Tom's "model". Your shirt, the sun, the moon. Everything. At least from my understanding.
I think this is correct:The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.
(https://i.imgur.com/WDmYgHT.png)
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
Anything that sets behind the horizon must "be an observer" in order for Tom's theory to hold up. Ships, trees, etc. I haven't done the math, but I think putting a third observer in this model would predict that the world would appear super curvy and wonky to everyone all the time. If the horizon rises to the eye because we can only see some finite distance [Rowbotham], space would basically appear to warp at that distance. But it doesn't, because the horizon does not rise to the eye, and the only reason people say it does is because Rowbotham said it does because he was a fucking hack.
'Perspective' is not about light or lines at all, as Tom references it. The whole belief is built on denialism. There is no need for completeness: The flat Earth model has no prediction or explanation for why constellations (e.g. Orion) visible in either hemisphere during its summer. There is no need for consistency: The flat Earth skepticism known as zeteticism makes no provision for asserting conjecture (e.g. celestial gravitation) or conspiracy theories without personally observing the evidence. There is no need for correctness: The flat Earth believers we meet here have no care whatsoever for accuracy or rigor.
How high is the the sun above the Earth? Eratosthenes shows a height of 3000 miles. How big is the Earth? Eratosthenes showed a circumference of 25000 miles. It does not matter that these come from the same experiment; you get one or the other, but not both, but our resident zetetics have referenced both. It does not matter that repeated trials of the Bedford Level Experiment showed curvature of the Earth. It does not matter that triangulation makes calculating distances and heights trivial. It does not matter that airlines monitor fuel consumption carefully and know their engine efficiency to precision. It definitely doesn't matter that Tom Bishop said he would accept a spherical map of the Earth built from airline data as proof of a round Earth, then two such proofs were presented, and he was reduced to claiming that no one knows the distance between New York and Paris in avoidance of the truth.
These things don't matter because it's not about proof; but it's not just about faith without proof. There is no proof that God exists, but people believe all the same; there isn't exactly proof that God doesn't exist, either. There is an ages-old debate about who has burden of proof in that argument. Regarding the shape of the Earth; it is observed, measured, catalogued, and demonstrated seventeen ways from Sunday that the Earth is a motherfuckin' globe. So much so that most people don't give it much thought, it's just common knowledge, in the same way that 'car engines work using gasoline' is common knowledge, but few people are mechanics who know how it actually works. 'The Earth is a globe' is common knowledge but not a lot of people understand gravity, general relativity, optics, and geodesy, just to name a couple of relevant subjects. All the evidence is there, proof of the Earth's spherical shape, so believing in flat Earth means denying that evidence.
Refusing to accept burden of proof is only one more act of denial.
Prove the space travel conspiracy, or accept photographic evidence of Earth's shape taken from space.
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))
There's been some stuff about 'positive claims' relating to who has to prove what around here, so I want to clear something up.rather, properly disprove that "conspiracy" or give up your claim to its fiction. demonstrate through some sources the doctoring of images or abandon this insanity. see how that works both ways? you're not right. at best, you are maintaining purgatory.Quote from: WikipediaA negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))
There's also an old thread on this very topic. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=979.msg9423#msg9423)
Consider an alibi: It can be phrased as a positive claim, 'I was out of town,' or as a negative claim, 'I was not there.' These amount to the same thing, and are supported by the same evidence, e.g. a train ticket or other proof of travel.
So, 'space travel is real' and 'there is a conspiracy to fake space travel' are both positive claims. You can effectively rephrase both into negative claims, 'there is not a conspiracy to fake space travel' and 'there is no real space travel.' Which form they take does not change the substance of the argument.
Photographs taken from space (https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+from+space&pws=0&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja87iFrq7XAhWDMSYKHbFnA3QQsAQIJg&biw=1536&bih=758&dpr=1.25) are evidence that space travel is real, satisfying burden of proof for those who make the claim.
That photographs can be altered or faked entirely is not evidence that a specific photograph is altered or fake. Messing with a photo leaves traces that can be analyzed (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170629-the-hidden-signs-that-can-reveal-if-a-photo-is-fake) - it is not sufficient to state 'photos are unreliable' in response to a couple decades worth of photographs and videos.
Hence, those who claim that space travel is not real, i.e. that there is a conspiracy to fake space travel, must support their claim by satisfying the burden of proof. This has nothing to do with the semantics of positive vs negative claims.
Prove the space travel conspiracy, or give up.
Prove the space travel conspiracy, or give up.rather, properly disprove that "conspiracy" or give up your claim to its fiction. demonstrate through some sources the doctoring of images or abandon this insanity. see how that works both ways? you're not right. at best, you are maintaining purgatory.
Despite its frequent criticism from mainstream science, the Zetetic approach to science is happy to take on board objections from its opponents because those objections will ultimately be used to strengthen the Flat Earth position.
In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous and charitable towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong.