The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: DuniyaGolHai on September 22, 2017, 01:03:03 PM

Title: The burden of proof.
Post by: DuniyaGolHai on September 22, 2017, 01:03:03 PM
Why do FE'er (Specifically Tom) believe that burden of proof to prove earth is round (And not flat) on RE'er.

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.

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,
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: junker on September 22, 2017, 03:07:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 23, 2017, 02:50:25 AM
This forum is pretty ripe with the informal fallacy argument from ignorance, which concerns burden of proof. From Wikipedia: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

But, taking this a step further, flat earthers will insist that the earth has been proven flat (it hasn't) and that the earth cannot be round because it has not been proven to be so (it has). Evidence is refused, arguments ignored, etc., and so it goes. No one possesses the power to dissuade a true believer. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/denial-science-chris-mooney/) So, "proof" in these forums is not the same concept you might find in a more worthy arena: The burden is always on the truth, and nothing can fulfill it.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 23, 2017, 04:25:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 24, 2017, 01:05:15 AM
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. Burden of proof is therefore on those who claim the Earth is flat; we who disagree need only raise enough evidence to warrant our dispute, and it is on our opponents to produce the proof.

Consider: "If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative. If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Example)

The social narrative in question is that the Earth is round, as measured and observed repeatedly through the ages. When Rowbotham claimed to have evidence the Earth was flat, the burden of proof was on him. He produced the Bedford Level experiment and the laws of perspective, so to speak, as proof. Fair enough! But upon evaluation this proof fails, and so does his claim fail. The evaluation, or disproof, involves repeating his experiment with reproducible methods, or by correcting the faulty geometry which is the premise of his treatise on perspective. These disproofs can be found with evidence supporting them in several of 3DGeek's threads, most recently, and repeated back into antiquity. When you then reject this evidence prima facie, you are engaging in denialism and/or creating an argument from ignorance: There is no "agreeable and adequate proof of evidence" to support your claim that the Earth is flat.

Consider also:
Quote from: J. B. Bury
"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)

I imagine someone who believes the Earth is flat would interpret this to be about the widespread societal belief that the Earth is round. But consider: If you were told that every image from space is faked, that there is a multinational government conspiracy to pretend to have spaceflight capability, that instead of gravity and relativity and quantum physics being true, there is a force of universal acceleration moving the Earth straight up that, in order to accelerate the mass of just the Earth 9.8m/s^2 continuously, would require energy equal to the mass-energy of the observable universe in a single human lifetime, and that the proof for these things is that the Earth is flat so they must be true, and we are not justified in rejecting the premise unless we can prove all the corollaries false, but no argument against any of them is ever, ever accepted ... the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter!

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."

<3
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2017, 06:17:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 24, 2017, 06:36:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: junker on September 24, 2017, 08:41:29 PM
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.

False.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 24, 2017, 09:14:33 PM
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.

False.
Incorrect.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2017, 10:50:12 PM
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.
I look out of my window and see the sun set knowing my friend to the west of me sees it set later. 

How is your timeanddate.com comparision going?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 24, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
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.

Anyone reading this discussion can follow the links in my signature to two cases of justifying my beliefs further.

Incidentally, out my window right now is a sunset, evidence of a round earth.

If you wish to continue in good faith, I encourage you to develop a response to the substance of my previous comment.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Niit476 on September 25, 2017, 07:21:11 AM
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.
And Xeno is right, looking out the window can be evidence for a RE, so I don't know how that can be your go to claim.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 25, 2017, 12:03:55 PM
At this point, we aren't even asking for a defense.  Just an description of where the sun is physically located at sunset - and what path the photons of light from the sun take to get to our eyes.  Your Wiki has pages of math and pretty diagrams - but your principle proponent (and the guy all of that stuff is named after) now tells us that it's incorrect.

This is a request for the simplest information about FET...nothing more...yet NOBODY will give me a straight answer.

What path do the photons from the sun travel along at sunset?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: round boye on September 27, 2017, 10:03:26 PM
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.

Why don't you demonstrate all the absurd claims you're making?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Obviously on September 28, 2017, 06:38:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: J-Man on September 28, 2017, 01:15:50 PM
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 28, 2017, 01:27:54 PM
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E

I think the best part of this post, is you can SEE that Polaris has moved in the thumbnail image for his video. I don't even have to watch it now to know it's going to be a load of bullcrap. XD Thanks J-Man, saved me some time with that one. Just because you can't understand the evidence, doesn't make it less valid. Does a computer stop working for someone because they don't know how something about works? (Anyone in IT knows how terribly untrue that is.) So why should the explanations and evidence not work simply because you can't understand them?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 28, 2017, 01:36:46 PM
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E

Wow! What a truly crappy video!

"Oh no!  There are really big numbers here!  That can't be true!"

Why not?

The thing is that all motion is relative...even you FE'ers admit this because your Earth has been accelerating at 9.8 meters/sec/sec for a billion years or so - which means that it's moving MUCH faster than the speed described for the RE earth in the video.

Truth is, there is no such thing as "absolute motion" - and both RET and FET must acknowledge this.

Polaris doesn't appear to move significantly through human history (although it does move a TINY bit) in part because it's orbiting around the galactic center just like we are - and in part because it's so insanely far away that the relatively tiny motion of the Earth around the Sun is essentially negligible.   Our orbit is around 200 million miles across and Polaris is 2,500,000,000 MILLION miles away.  So imagine a right triangle with one side being 10 million times longer than the other...what is the angle at the apex?  Like millionths of a degree.

That's how far you'd expect Polaris to wobble in the sky due to the Earth's orbit.

But then, the idiot presenter goes on to berate modern science for a ~30% error bar in our estimate of the distance to Polaris.  Yeah - distances to stars are hard to measure accurately.  But we carefully document where those errors come from and freely admit how big they are.

What about Polaris in the Flat Earth?   Do you guys tell us how far up in the sky Polaris is?   No?   What are your errors like?   Heck you don't even know THAT!

You can't even get this much right...on your "unipolar" map - sure, Polaris is always over the North Pole.  What about Sigma Octanis and the Southern Cross?   Where are they?  We know they are reliably SOUTH of anyplace in the southern hemisphere/hemiplane - but where is that?   It's EVERYWHERE!!!   But the unipolar map is clearly crap.

So on the "bipolar" map, where is the Southern Cross?   Well, it's vertically overhead the center of Antarctica - but that's a problem because there are places on the equator line where the bearing to the Southern Cross and to Polaris are not 180 degrees apart...but we have plenty of photos showing that they are in fact ALWAYS 180 degrees apart.

So that map is busted too.

Honestly - the FE world needs to get it's house in order before it starts launching these kinds of stupid attacks that raise more questions than they answer.


Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 29, 2017, 12:29:41 AM
IMO, the simplest way to frame the burden of proof in this debate looks like this:

Quote
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

The Flat Earth Society has to prove the Space Travel Conspiracy (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy), or accept that the Earth has been directly observed to be a sphere, by astronauts looking out of windows.

Speculation, like assuming NASA must have started faking space travel around the time of the Apollo 1 fire for a political motivation, is not evidence that space exploration is faked. Suggestion, like asking 'Do you really trust everything your government tells you?', is not evidence that space exploration is faked. Quackery, like pointing out non-intuitive things happening or astronauts saying weird stuff that your favorite youtuber says is proof they are filming on land, is not evidence that space exploration is faked.

No, a good place to start would be to find and demonstrate fakery in the 24/7 livestream from the International Space Station (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload), and the hours of footage of spacewalks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip77GoiF7f8), and the amateur videos of shuttle launches and reentry (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=home+video+space+shuttle).

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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 29, 2017, 04:19:21 PM
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.

Captain Disillusion is a very skilled debunker of faked video.  He finds stuff I'd never figure out (and I'm in the business of making simulations - which are, in a sense, faked videos).

However, he also very honestly, says when he finds that a video is true.

He did a live talk to some group or other a while back (without his signature makeup) - and he said that he'd studied the Apollo footage and was unable to find any evidence of fakery. 

That hardly constitutes PROOF that it wasn't faked - but this is one of those "can't prove a negative" things that conspiracy theorists just love.

We can, however, comprehensively debunk every single specific claim that this-or-that feature in the videos "proves" a fake ("Oh no!  There are no stars!"..."Cameras...exposure times...yadda yadda...so you wouldn't expect to see stars").   In almost every case, the moron who claims to have found a problem is profoundly ignorant of the conditions on the moon and the nature of transmitting video over a quarter million miles using 1960's technology and with less energy than a light bulb driving a dish that's poorly aimed and only 2 feet across.

So the hypothesis that the moon landings were faked is unfalsifiable - but that doesn't mean it's true.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on October 30, 2017, 08:30:59 PM
We often see Flat Earthers' claiming that the burden of proof is on Round-Earthers to show that the Earth isn't flat.

I always find this to be an odd position to take - but it's interesting to read:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

...especially the first section about "Holder of the Burden".

Quote
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.

I would say that the FE'ers are challenging the perceived status quo - but I can see that from their perspective, the status quo is their own belief system.

What I think happens here (again, quoting Wikipedia) is:

Quote
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".

The following section "Shifting the burden of proof" is also interesting in this context:

Quote
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.

This is precisely what goes wrong in FE debates.  The "burden of proof" should flip over to their side of the court when a logical argument is made against their proposition...but they don't accept it.

So the FE'ers will say "X is true and that (for us) is the status quo - so we don't have to prove it"...then the RE'ers say "Here is a disproof of X"...which in rational debate should flip the burden of proof over to the FE'ers.  But what happens is very often that they don't respond.  So RE'ers claim victory on grounds that the FE'ers failed to take up their burden and supply a counter-argument.

In a formal debate process, the proposed disproof of X flips the burden of proof over to the other side - and if the result is "No argument" then it's an RE victory...albeit a somewhat unsatisfying one.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on October 30, 2017, 08:54:43 PM
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?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: junker on October 30, 2017, 09:02:34 PM
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 merged this thread with a recent thread on the same topic.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 30, 2017, 09:07:45 PM
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 but never touch. No evidence has been provided for that perspective model.

The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on October 30, 2017, 09:11:12 PM
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.

If the ancient greeks were the ONLY ones to say this - then you'd (perhaps) have a point - but it's not like we just accepted what they said and never looked into it again.

The proof of "infinite vanishing point" perspective is inherent in the fact that light travels in straight lines.

There are plenty of other things the ancient greeks came up with (Pythagoras's theorem, Eulers theorems...you name it) that we've proven for ourselves and now accepted - and plenty of things we looked at carefully and rejected (the idea that all numbers are rational for example).

Just because it's "ancient greek" neither proves nor disproves anything.

I proved that the conventional laws of perspective are correct for you in my thread about pinhole cameras...but you didn't seem to understand it somehow.

This is why I keep banging on about you explaining how the photons get from sun to eye at sunset.   That removes "perspective" from the argument and simply requires us to agree on the straight-line path these tiny objects take through the atmosphere.

But you repeatedly defect on your offer to write about it simply - and just refer to your previous "8 pages" where you were still talking about perspective and never once mentioned the path the photons take.

Fact is - you don't answer because you can't - and you KNOW that you can't.   We've won...unless you can explain the path of the photons without using the word "perspective".

Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on October 30, 2017, 09:12:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 30, 2017, 11:53:12 PM
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.

You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested. How does that make your argument strong?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on October 30, 2017, 11:59:01 PM
The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.

bro, get out of here with this 'weak' 'strong' 'combat' nonsense. you sound like a zealot

anyway here is the alpha and omega of empirical observation as it relates to the shape of the earth:
Quote from: Wikipedia
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.

https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceVideosHD/live (https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceVideosHD/live)

talk about perspective until the cows come home; it doesn't matter at all. the empirical evidence is against you
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on October 31, 2017, 12:04:33 AM
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
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2017, 01:02:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on October 31, 2017, 01:35:55 AM
okay, you made that incorrect point before. I'm writing to this:

 * CuriousSquirrel writes a thing
 * You claim he admits the Greeks never proved their geometry
 * He did not admit anything of the sort, be it tacitly, implicitly, or otherwise
 * garbage & you = 1 & 1 = 2

also, I and others have in past threads already demonstrated empirically the laws of perspective, as predicted by and defined by Ancient Greek philosophers. having done that, your whining is best described as Denialism.

and this is the perfect thread to bring this up! I don't even have to link anything; I have a post earlier in this very thread about how people who argue that the Earth is flat refuse to agree on a standard of evidence! if you agreed with us about anything with regards to how perspective actually works, it would be tantamount to conceding the entire argument. the only recourse is denial.

see also: space travel, and the denial thereof

plus, I guess it's on point and somewhat hysterical that you ignored the post I made in the middle of all this, that linked to actual evidence. more fun to flame each other, I suppose, than call it a wash
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: mtnman on October 31, 2017, 04:50:20 AM

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.
Sure Tom, let's go measure something at infinite distance. Anyone see a problem with that?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on October 31, 2017, 05:36:09 AM
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.
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.

For the FE sun, the math that works at any testable distance you care to name, predicts the sun to be well above the angle required for it to vanish due to our eyes angular limit. You must show that either the math stops working at those distances, show that something is wrong about our understanding of the eye, or admit the Earth cannot be flat. Those are the options open to you. I'm not sure how I can put it any plainer. Do you need me to put together some geometry homework for you, so you can see for yourself that the laws of sine, cosine, and tangent work in the real world as well as on paper? Or are you able to trust my word and those of the rest of us on this forum?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on October 31, 2017, 01:28:08 PM
Well, we can continually allow Tom to babble on about perspective lines (which ONLY an artifact of focussing systems!) or we can talk like big boys in the 21st century and consider the photons.

If you take a large sheet of paper - or a big flat white-painted wall - let the sun shine onto it - can you see the sun as a big circle on the paper/wall?

No - you can't - and the reason is that the light isn't being focussed.

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

So in the image above, light rays from various parts of the sun are going off in every direction - the red lines from the top of the sun, the green lines from the center and the blue lines from the bottom go every which way - and no image appears.

So to form an image - you need some kind of device that focusses the light - it can be a lens or a curved mirror - or it can be a simple pinhole.   Pinhole cameras work very well, they can photograph sunsets, they exhibit perspective and they are by far the simplest devices to discuss.   So if we put a pinhole between the light source and the paper - we can exclude all of the light rays that are not going to help in forming an image:

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

..and now we have an image.  And the lines I've drawn for "light rays" are also the paths of the photons...wave/particle duality and all of that.

"Perspective" can only emerge when we make an image - you can't talk about parallel lines meeting without talking about some kind of an imaging device.   We know that the big lumps of steel that make up the rails on which trains run do not LITERALLY touch - that's something any child knows.   They only APPEAR to touch (or perhaps come close to touching as I would argue) in images.

Without an imaging device, we cannot talk about perspective.

So there are two ways you can take this conversation:

1) We can continue to talk about "perspective" - but we have to ALWAYS remember that this conversation means nothing without including some kind of imaging device in our discussions.

2) We can forget about imaging devices - and stop talking about perspective and simply discuss how photons get from here to there.

I prefer the latter because it's simpler to understand - but I'm sufficiently knowlegeable and confident about my subject matter (being a 3D graphics expert...as my user-name implies) to discuss it from either debate position.

What you CANNOT DO - is to mix the two explanations as you feel like to make your argument work.   You can't start off talking about the paths of free photons - and then flip into talking about perspective without first introducing a focussing device which has selectively cut out many of those free paths.

So - if you wish to continue to talk about perspective - and the PROOF that the "vanishing point" is at infinity - then may I refer you to this diagram from a previous thread:

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

...which allows one to use the pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles, to establish the relationship between distance in the real world (Hsubject) and distance on the image (Himage) as:   Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject.   This is the essence of perspective.  As the distance to the subject increases (Dsubject gets bigger) then Himage gets smaller.  At what point does the sun reach the horizon?  Well, that's when Himage is zero - and for that to be true then mathematically, one of three conditions must apply:

1) Dimage must be zero...but that would describe a zero-sized camera - which couldn't make an image of anything because ALL distances on the image would be zero and it could only take zero sized photographs!
2) Hsubject must be zero...which would mean that the sun was PHYSICALLY touching the ground - which would start fires in cities at noon!
3) Dsubject must be INFINITE...which is what really happens.

Since Dsubject being infinite is the ONLY solution to the pinhole camera experiment that get the sun to the horizon in a flat earth - you're going to have to admit that the vanishing point is at infinity.

That's the ONLY way that light can travel in straight lines through a pinhole camera and make an image of the sun at the horizon.  The sun would have to be INFINITELY far away.

And by the way - we see the sun sink BELOW the horizon - and there are no sane values of Dimage, Dsubject or Hsubject that allow that to happen.

OK - so that's where your argument fails if you talk about focussed images...like what you see with your eye.   This line of discussion produces an EQUATION for the height of the sun on a focussed image - and that proves that (a) the vanishing point is infinitely far away and (b) that there cannot be flat earth sunsets and therefore (c) the Earth is round.

HOWEVER:

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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: TomInAustin on October 31, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
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.

Please show us any evidence that there are things called perspective lines.   It makes no sense.   Perspective is a phenomenon of the eye, not physics or math.

Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: douglips on October 31, 2017, 03:20:14 PM
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.

False.

How does this work, let me try it: "Please refrain from low information posts on the upper fora."

Did I do that right?

But seriously - I post pictures of clouds showing the shadow of the earth. I ask questions about latitude and longitude or the Eratosthenes experiment. I link to things I want to discuss.

It's all very frustrating to do all this work and have people just come along and say "False" and not even bother to give a single example.

I do have to say I appreciate Tom Bishop, he actually engages in thoughtful conversations. We've had discussions of perspective and apparent angular movement that are actually interesting, and have spawned several possible experiment ideas. If I ever get around to them I'll be back to discuss with him because he actually engages.

But if you're just going to say "False" and not even link to anything helpful then you might as well stay silent.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: junker on October 31, 2017, 04:03:50 PM
How does this work, let me try it: "Please refrain from low information posts on the upper fora."

Did I do that right?
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.


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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2017, 06:47:00 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: StinkyOne on October 31, 2017, 06:49:17 PM
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. This is really silly though. A car will look smaller and smaller as it travels away from us, yet we know that is merely optics and the resolving power of the human eye. The car never changes size. (much to the delight of it's occupants)
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2017, 07:01:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: StinkyOne on October 31, 2017, 07:02:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2017, 07:16:15 PM
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 -- the determination of relative position to your own. 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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: StinkyOne on October 31, 2017, 07:23:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2017, 07:25:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: StinkyOne on October 31, 2017, 07:41:32 PM
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.

QFT

So, if the top of a railroad track is 8 inches off the ground, it will always be 8 inches off the ground, correct? No matter how far away I travel, that track is always in the same location.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on October 31, 2017, 09:03:06 PM
hell and damn yes it is in the same location at the same height

one more time for the people in the back:

Perspective doesn't change orientation. It changes apparent orientation. Apparent as in appearing to be, visible, etc. But more accurately, perspective doesn't actually change apparent orientation: Distance from a lens does, one part of perspective. 3DGeek has repeatedly made this abundantly clear with his diagrams of pinhole cameras. And, repeating again, your eyes focus light like pinhole cameras.

If you throw a football some distance and keep your eye on it as it goes, it will appear to get smaller. Its size is constant. Its volume, mass, etc etc etc are unaffected by perspective. Its apparent size to you will get smaller. The inverse is true as well: If someone throws it back, it appears to get bigger as it gets closer to you. Perspective is not changing its size. Distance from pinhole + looking through that pinhole is changing its apparent size when viewed from that pinhole. That this happens is one law of perspective. Perspective doesn't DO anything. It can't; it doesn't, never has, and never will do anything, the same way that math doesn't do anything. You can use it to describe stuff, and to predict stuff. Which is awesome! Very helpful, very useful things, perspective and maths. But they don't do stuff.

So how about them parallel lines?

Quote from: Wikipedia
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))

This is description. Definition, practically. It does not have to be proven (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove), per se, because it is directly describing empirical observation. "Look at these railroad tracks! They are a constant width apart, like parallel lines. Sure do appear to converge toward that vanishing point." Tom likes to say that Euclid's ideas are hypothetical: They are not. They never were. They are empirical in nature. Specifically, Euclid defined parallel lines; he did not hypothesize them. (https://plus.maths.org/content/origins-proof)

It is stupendously absurd that we are arguing about the worth of Euclid's definitions in a thread with the topic Burden Of Proof. Can we get back to the topic, that is, can you start ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the Earth is not flat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY7W3EMfrgc) some more?

oh yeah, that's great. thanks
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: inquisitive on October 31, 2017, 09:55:35 PM
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.
Your words, as you know, make no sense.  'seem to touch'?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 01, 2017, 05:28:14 AM
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.

Quote
And 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.

Quote
If they do touch at some distance, then your diagram will look a whole lot different.

Your parallel lines will never touch though. They will seem to touch because of the angular limit of the eye, and we can predict accurately where this occurs as I showed you. But once again, Euclidean geometry is dealing with the physical location of something, and there it is correct that two parallel lines will never meet. There is nothing here about 'perspective lines' as you keep saying.

Quote
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.

What continuous universe? What are you even talking about, as it has nothing to do with the subject of simple geometry. For the third time I say it, in the hopes that repetition will somehow help you get it. Euclidean geometry in and of itself doesn't deal with where things appear to be. It deals with where they physically are. We can use it's properties and the properties of the eye to accurately predict where, say two railroad tracks will no longer be distinguishable as two separate objects, but that's not part of what it tells us on it's own.

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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2017, 05:45:36 AM
Quote from: xenotolerance
Tom 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 Squirrel
Quote
And 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?

Quote
Your 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Wrong. You need to explain why we need to assume that perspective lines will never meet when this has never been observed.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: inquisitive on November 01, 2017, 09:10:30 AM
Quote from: xenotolerance
Tom 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 Squirrel
Quote
And 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?

Quote
Your 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Wrong. You need to explain why we need to assume that perspective lines will never meet when this has never been observed.
Your understanding of the word perspective is very strsnge. There is no such thing as a perspective model.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: devils advocate on November 01, 2017, 09:46:22 AM
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?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: devils advocate on November 01, 2017, 09:50:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2017, 02:34:49 PM
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?

You will need a real world demonstration that your model for perspective is accurate.

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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on November 01, 2017, 02:37:05 PM

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, how do I know this? I have travelled both ways, to London and Nottingham. Don’t take my word for this check trainline for times and more importantly see if you can find complaints from people buying a ticket for any of the destinations, who only got as far as the end of the platform. From the many plainly ridiculous things you have ever said, your need for proof on something as fundamental as this leads me to the conclusions that either you are a troll, or you have dementia.
 
(http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/81/78/4817811_086d6f6c.jpg)
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2017, 02:39:54 PM

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

Perspective changes your determination of relative position. See my above quote:

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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: devils advocate on November 01, 2017, 03:54:59 PM
You will need a real world demonstration that your model for perspective is accurate.

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?

Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 01, 2017, 04:20:35 PM
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.
Quote
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.

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.


Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2017, 04:53:49 PM
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.

Perspective affects orientation, not position. Perspective changes the orientation of railroad tracks to appear at the level of the eye, and it has oriented them to converge.

Quote
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?

Perspective is how the world shows itself to us, and is dependant on the observer. From the train's perspective those tracks are not meeting, and so it is able to travel across them easily.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2017, 04:54:13 PM
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.
Quote
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.

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.

See my post about how 2 + 2 does not always equal 4:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 01, 2017, 05:17:53 PM
Quote from: xenotolerance
Tom 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?
'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.

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.
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.

Quote from: Curious Squirrel
Quote
And 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?
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
Your 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.
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.

Quote
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.

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.
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.

Quote
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.

Wrong. You need to explain why we need to assume that perspective lines will never meet when this has never been observed.
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.

Once again, geometry can tell us where something is physically located, in relation to another thing. That's all it does. We then need to bring in focal length, and angular limit, and other things to determine if that object can be properly seen. The math is backed up every time it's used in reality. If you have an example where it doesn't, present it. But at the moment you have a sun 20 degrees above the horizontal.

Thought experiment on this. If I took an object, set it 20 feet away from you and 10 feet up, could you still see it? How about 200 feet away and 100 feet up? Where does this stop working? Why? How do you know? Because what you are presently claiming is at some point that distance ration will produce an object appearing to touch the ground. Prove it.

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.
Quote
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.

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.
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.)
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: mtnman on November 01, 2017, 05:46:21 PM

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?

Quote
Your 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 track appear to converge. Tom, do you think the railroad tracks actually meet?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: StinkyOne on November 01, 2017, 06:07:28 PM
Tom, I guess my question is, what are you getting at? Yes, if you move around a scene, the orientation, relative to you, changes. It is important to note that nothing except your position has changed.

I'm guessing your trying to build a base for the whole setting sun thing, but, by your own examples, that doesn't work. Just like train tracks moving together, the sun, if you were correct, would have to get noticeably smaller and that just doesn't happen.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 01, 2017, 08:48:37 PM
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.

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.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5615/15605318836_6fdb4ac97d_b.jpg)

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?

Finally - having established that I CAN feel the heat of the sun...I take off the blindfold - Tom tells us that the sun is CLEARLY behind the mountain - I'm standing in shadow - but I can still feel the sun's rays warming my face?   Eh?!  What the heck?

This is impossible - but 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?

(And just in case you're thinking of saying that heat travels in other ways - I sneakily had a photo-cell taped to my forehead the whole time - and that confirms that there is (or is not) sunlight shining onto it).
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 01, 2017, 09:09:06 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 01, 2017, 09:25:39 PM
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:

Quote
Perspective 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?"
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 01, 2017, 09:30:08 PM
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:

Quote
Perspective 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?"

That's the thing your skipping over. *Everything* is an observer in Tom's "model". Your shirt, the sun, the moon. Everything. At least from my understanding.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on November 01, 2017, 09:49:04 PM
Quote from: xenotolerance
Tom 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?

Given that 'infinitely-approaching perspective lines' is a phrase you are using to make actual perspective sound spooky and weird, I'm gonna call bullshit on you right there. This argument is a circular rabbit hole, seemingly created solely to derail threads. This thread is about burden of proof anyway, not perspective.

focus boiz

Quote from: me
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."

you gonna throw around ideas like the space travel conspiracy, like universal acceleration, like stellar gears, and pretend like it's our job to prove Euclid? bitch, your brain is backwards.

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
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on November 01, 2017, 10:04:59 PM
oh yeah also

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.

the writer is a psychology PhD, explaining that 40 on a given test scale for, say, hydrophobia, is not necessarily twice as hydrophobic as a 20 is. This has literally nothing to do with the truth or validity of mathematics. More to the point, it it utterly irrelevant to Euclid's geometry, parallel lines, and perspective.

Here is an excellent paper on the universality of 2 + 2 = 4. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jr/how_to_convince_me_that_2_2_3/)
Quote
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.

anyway

None of us need to prove that our underlying model for perspective lines is anything. You have to prove that NASA has a conspiracy. get fucken started already

////

editing to add:

Tom has made quite a reversal!

in this thread:

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.

sidenote, Tom uses the 'infinite distance' strawman too much. we don't need to discuss infinite distance, just similar triangles with a longest side of 6000 miles.

from the vanishing point thread:

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.

compare to a thread from April of this year:

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?  ???

flip-flops confirmed. Tom has changed his tune to suit the convenience of his argument at the time. I guess now, instead of quoting wikipedia when writing about perspective, I can just refer Tom to his own dang self.

whups
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Earth is round you idiots on November 02, 2017, 09:25:34 PM
The earth is round and if anyone thinks otherwise they need to see a doctor to check for something.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: junker on November 02, 2017, 09:34:15 PM
The earth is round and if anyone thinks otherwise they need to see a doctor to check for something.

Excellent argument.

Also, please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. If you need further help, please check the rules. Warned.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on November 02, 2017, 10:47:09 PM
Hopefully this is a quick aside, but I am interested in responding to our newest contributor.

we know that smart people can disagree about important stuff, and that smart people can have huge blind spots and holes in their understanding. it is a mistake to assume that someone who thinks the Earth is flat has something wrong with them regarding intelligence or anything else, and it's insulting to so demean them. I did recently tell Tom Bishop he was stupid, so I am not above this behavior in general, though it was not in reference to his belief that the Earth is flat.

because the shape of the Earth is so painfully obviously round, and because it feels so painfully obvious to our hosts that it is actually flat, there is not a lot of fertile ground for debate. it's similar in nature to religious debates: there's just nothing to agree on, and everything is high stakes, and no one gains or gives any ground on the basic questions. but the person on the other side of the table from you is still a human being capable of thought and reason, be they Guest or John Davis. They think they're right about the shape of the Earth, and also that they're smart. I don't think I'm smarter, and I don't think they're not smart. I just think I'm less wrong (http://lesswrong.com/).

I don't expect to change anybody's mind. That's not how minds work. If you think the Earth is flat, I can't do anything about that and neither can anyone else. Just time and good information have any chance of bringing you around. In the meantime, I'm having fun, so I'll keep this up as long as that remains the case.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Earth is round you idiots on November 02, 2017, 11:16:53 PM
to be honest im just trying to get banned
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: junker on November 02, 2017, 11:33:31 PM
to be honest im just trying to get banned

2nd warning.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on November 05, 2017, 07:37:31 AM
*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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 06, 2017, 03:35:16 AM
*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.

It's back down to "Where do the photons go?"

If the claim is that perspective is a property of how photons move - in the absence of a focussing device like an eye or a camera - then that's saying that they don't travel in straight lines.   But Tom claims that they DO move in straight lines...and (as my thought-experiment, above, shows) that's an inconsistent viewpoint.

Either the Earth isn't Flat...or...there is no such thing as a sunset...or...light doesn't travel in straight lines (aka Magic Perspective).

It really would be nice for Tom to respond to this - or follow up on his TWO promises to start a new thread to explain how the photons move (one from over a month ago - another from about a week ago).

But I fear he's gone into hiding again as he tends to do when there are arguments that he can't refute.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: mtnman on November 06, 2017, 04:21:12 AM
I'm still hopeful that one of his fellow FE faithful will take up the baton for him. Why can't someone on the behalf of flat Earth explain how light works at sunset? If this question is too complicated for your belief system, that should tell you something.

In another thread gone quiet, Tom explained that the vanishing point is caused by things blocking the light (trees, waves, etc.) That would seem to indicate that there would be no sunsets if you were at a high altitude. I asked for confirmation of this from him, with about as much success as you have had on this question.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: douglips on November 07, 2017, 04:18:06 AM
I think I see where Tom is going with this.

I think for him "horizon" is the distance one can see before perspective lines join. It's possible to have your view obstructed by mountains or something, but in the absence of mountains, he's saying that once you see that distance (however far it works out to be) you can't see further.

However, I see a problem.

Look at the second diagram, the one from the Sun's perspective.
If an airplane is flying directly over the observer, it is SLIGHTLY closer to the sun and so is still closer than the "horizon".
BUT. If an airplane is flying farther away from the sun, for example east of the observer at sunset, but flying at a high enough altitude, it is FARTHER away from the sun, and yet is illuminated by direct sunlight and passengers on the plane can still see the sun.

How is this possible?

To get detailed, if we think the sun is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles up, then by flying an airplane 40000 feet (approximately 8 miles) up, the airplane is (sqrt(6000^2 + 3000^2) - sqrt(6000^2 + 2992^2)) or about 3.6 miles closer to the sun.

So if the airplane were 4 miles further away, it should be at the "horizon". If you were to fly on an airplane at a location more than 4 miles (say, 8 miles) east of the sunset and still see the sun it would prove you could still see the sun "beyond the horizon".

Furthermore, if moving away from the sun (or rather, the sun moving away from you) is what causes it to set, you have the same problem by going north or south.

For example, if you start with an observer at sunset at the equator on the equinox, and the sun 3000 miles up and 6000 miles away, then an observer at latitude 37 degrees (approximately Tom's latitude) is 2220 nautical miles north of the equator and thus the overland distance to the sun is sqrt(6000^2 + 2220^2) or about 6400 miles away, so the sun is about 360 miles further away.
NOTE: For this simple example I've assumed a shape of the earth nobody posits, to account for the curvature of the earth I can consider the unipolar model since that's the only one that I can make heads or tails of. In that case, the sun is over a spot 6000 miles along the equator, or about 1/4 of the way around the disk of the earth. That means the sun is actually CLOSER to spots north of the equator, and FURTHER AWAY from spots south of the equator at the same longitude. In any flat earth model we can construct locations along a longitude line that are either much closer or much further from the sun than the observer at the equator.

So on the equinox, an observer at the same longitude as an observer at the equator would see the sunset at a much different time than the observer at the equator does. But, given that it's the equinox, all observers at the same longitude observe the sunset at the same time, causing a problem for this perspective theory.

Tom- is that how the horizon works or does the distance to the horizon vary based on other factors?
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on November 08, 2017, 06:39:37 AM
There's been some stuff about 'positive claims' relating to who has to prove what around here, so I want to clear something up.

Quote from: Wikipedia
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 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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: FactiousFacts on November 08, 2017, 08:19:37 AM
There's been some stuff about 'positive claims' relating to who has to prove what around here, so I want to clear something up.

Quote from: Wikipedia
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 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.
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.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: xenotolerance on December 20, 2017, 07:14:10 PM
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.

nah mate. You're demonstrating a semantic technique for effecting the appearance of good argument, without actually having any standing to make one. It's a politician's best friend, and one of Tom's only moves. Say 'no, YOU!' and pretend you turned the tables, and demand evidence that's already been provided, and generally ignore what's correct in favor of what feels good to say or hear.
Title: Re: The burden of proof.
Post by: Havonii on December 20, 2017, 07:44:21 PM
Let me just inject a thought here...

quote from Flat Earth library article
Quote
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.

The 'Burden of proof' will never be met, due to the way of thinking that Zetetic provides for evidence that doesn't comply.

Quote
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.

What is it? Ignorance.