321

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 04:24:34 AM »

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.

I'm not asking the question of a side view model or whatever was in that video. I'm asking about (1) your description of a sharp horizon, and (2) how the vanishing point exists in relation to the horizon, in your understanding.

322

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 04:12:26 AM »

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

323

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.

« on: September 21, 2017, 06:15:39 PM »

I have never claimed that the position of the rail road tracks touch. It is the orientation that touches - your determination of relative position. I have said that it is the orientation numerous times now. Learn to definition.

Ok Tom, I am going to quote you again.

You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

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

It's the orientation that touches

What does that even mean?

The point is that perspective, or orientation if you prefer, means how you see things. It doesn't mean that perspective is real. If I go outside on a bright sunny day and look up, I might put my hand up to shield my eyes from the sun. When I do that, my hand looks bigger than the sun. But I know it isn't, that's just my perspective.

324

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.

« on: September 21, 2017, 03:59:56 PM »

I've brought the train track thing up several times before and Tom ignores it. I doubt he will ever admit he is wrong on perspective. If he does, he would be forced to concede that the Earth is round because there is no other way for him to explain the sunset. It is frustrating to read a grown man trying to claim actual physical changes caused by perspective and invent things like "squished photons", but he really doesn't have any option other than to defend it as best he can.

Every time I read his use of perspective to explain everything I thing of this scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

325

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset

« on: September 21, 2017, 03:55:22 PM »

Look - don't get me wrong - I'm an avid RE'er - I *know* what results you should get.

All I'm saying is that if your evidence is not impeccable - the local wolves will tear it to shreds.

I never said it was the pinnacle of scientific testing. Just a very simple experiment that anyone can reproduce on their own. And I hope some people thinking about it will just do the same test themselves.

Can't blame NASA conspiracies for the result of where the sun sets.

I also took some pictures of a high rise that was 12-13 miles down the beach. Took them from the deck just above the beach and from my balcony on the 11th floor. Just using a basic zoom lens. In one picture you can see the line of the beach, in the other you can't. Looks curved to me. But why bother posting them, someone will just crap on them because I don't have the exact height of the 11th floor of the building or something.

326

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.

« on: September 20, 2017, 09:32:09 PM »

What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

327

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset

« on: September 19, 2017, 09:00:27 PM »

Nobody makes handrails from plastic...that would hardly meet safety standards.  There might be a thin coating of plastic OVER the metal railings...but that's not going to prevent the metal from distorting the compass readings.   Even if it wasn't ON the railing, we have no idea whether you were standing close enough to it for it to move the compass needle.

But we only have your word for all of those things.  Point is, your photographic evidence is clearly invalid.  Case closed.

A simple experiment. RE math/timeanddate.com pointed to a sunset at 275 degrees. On the rail, the compass showed 275. Off the rail, the compass showed 275.

The FE formula presented to me here predicted a sunset 51 degrees away from that. But sure, I set my compass on the wrong thing, cause maybe there was metal there. That's what's wrong. If that's what you want to focus on, go ahead. I really don't care. Maybe next year I'll wade out into the ocean with my compass.

328

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why do stars change on FE

« on: September 19, 2017, 02:41:42 PM »

a     b     c     d     e     f     g     h     i     j     k     l     m     n
______________________________________________________

If you are under point e you might only be able to see stars b though h. If you are under point j you might only be able to see stars g through m. When under point j here is some overlap in the stars you can see compared to when under point e.

Under the theory of the Ancient Greeks you should be able to see all stars when under any point; but this infinite nature of perspective theory has never been demonstrated.

This answer is absurd. The shift of perspective of a few thousand miles could not begin to make any difference in how we see stars related to each other. I hope you are not suggesting that in FET the stars are just a short distance away.

A change in viewing perspective can make a difference in seeing stars, but not from one country to another. It is possible to see a small change over a six month period, using the diameter of the Earth's orbit as the base of a triangle. This measurement technique is called stellar parallax, or just parallax. I don't recall the distance, but I think it is a practical measurement out to about 30 light years.

Also, the things we see as stars are not just single points of light which can only be defined by their constellation relationship. There are different stars, of different magnitudes, of different colors. There are nebula, clusters of stars, galaxies, and the band of the milky way itself. These objects are uniquely identifiable and many can only, ever, be seen from one hemisphere or another.

Yes, the stars are a short distance away in FET. Learn more FET.

Please explain on your diagram above how people at extreme distant points on FE map (like southern Australia and southern Argentina) can see the same stars/constellations but people in between (North America) can not see what they see.

329

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why do stars change on FE

« on: September 19, 2017, 02:38:45 PM »

+1 !!!

Tom, since you seem to understand the FE "theory" so well, why not just draw us a few diagrams to help us visualize how things "really" work?

I just provided you a diagram. Perhaps you can pull out Photoshop and better render it for inclusion into a wiki page. You know, contribute, rather than demanding everything from me.

Please don't try to tarnish the accomplishments of the greeks. First of, they never said anything like that (and if you think they did, please point us to a source).

The Ancient Greeks believed in a continuous universe where time was infinitely dividable, space was infinite and infinitely dividable,  and where perspective lines could approach each other for infinity and never touch. The Ancient Greek math says that perspective lines can never touch, which is the basis for all of the "sun can never set on a flat earth" youtube video counter arguments.

And by the way, this is another hole in the FE myth: if the sun does disappear from view with increasing distance (unlike what actually happens - Earth's rotation), then how come we can still see the distant stars near the horizon at night, despite the fact that they are further away and more dim?

They are not further away, and they tend to disappear when they set before hitting the horizon due to atmospheric opacity.

The "Ancient Greek math" also said the Earth was round. Are you considering them a source now?

330

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset

« on: September 19, 2017, 04:30:44 AM »

Um...you do know that compasses are screwed up by having large pieces of metal nearby?

Your compass appears to be lashed firmly to a large metal fence rail.

Sorry - your information is useless.

Yes I understand that. The surface of the rail was plastic, don't know if there was metal underneath, probably. But I did view the compass north heading while is was on the rail and several feet away to see if there was a difference and there was not. And yes I lashed it so it wouldn't fall off onto someone below.

I didn't take any pictures from the railing on the front of the building with the compass pointing in the FE predicted direction where there was not a sunset. When I placed the compass on that railing it did vastly change the compass heading. I did not see that behavior on the rail in the pictures.

331

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why do stars change on FE

« on: September 19, 2017, 03:56:14 AM »

a     b     c     d     e     f     g     h     i     j     k     l     m     n
______________________________________________________

If you are under point e you might only be able to see stars b though h. If you are under point j you might only be able to see stars g through m. When under point j here is some overlap in the stars you can see compared to when under point e.

Under the theory of the Ancient Greeks you should be able to see all stars when under any point; but this infinite nature of perspective theory has never been demonstrated.

This answer is absurd. The shift of perspective of a few thousand miles could not begin to make any difference in how we see stars related to each other. I hope you are not suggesting that in FET the stars are just a short distance away.

A change in viewing perspective can make a difference in seeing stars, but not from one country to another. It is possible to see a small change over a six month period, using the diameter of the Earth's orbit as the base of a triangle. This measurement technique is called stellar parallax, or just parallax. I don't recall the distance, but I think it is a practical measurement out to about 30 light years.

Also, the things we see as stars are not just single points of light which can only be defined by their constellation relationship. There are different stars, of different magnitudes, of different colors. There are nebula, clusters of stars, galaxies, and the band of the milky way itself. These objects are uniquely identifiable and many can only, ever, be seen from one hemisphere or another.

332

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset

« on: September 19, 2017, 12:57:58 AM »

Screen shot of zoomed view.

333

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset

« on: September 19, 2017, 12:50:59 AM »

...
My observation was that the sunset happened precisely at the time and direction according to RE math (via timeanddate.com). I found it difficult to have proper exposure and focus on the sunset and compass in the same frame. So in the pictures below you can two shots. In one you can see the sunset and a post on the beach, a volleyball net post I think. The post roughly points towards the sunset. in the second picture you can see my compass resting on the balcony pointing towards magnetic north. If you zoom in on the compass, you can see the sunset is at 275 degrees. The post in both pictures can used to judge the alignment.

...

Trying a second post to get the second photo posted.

My intent was to post the full resolution photos so that people could read the compass, but the site won't allow me to upload the full size image. I am also attaching a screen snip of the zoomed view. Can't attach it either. Will try another post.

334

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset

« on: September 19, 2017, 12:40:17 AM »

57.3 is to convert the results from radians to degrees. It's 180/Pi

My results for latitude 30.22749 (N) is 34° (rounded) north of West. Not sure what happened. You can PM me if you'd like or I can send you my Excel spreadsheet.

I made the trip to the ocean at Panama City Beach on the FL panhandle. I looked up the predicted sunset time and direction from timeanddate.com (RE math) and took the prediction from the FE formula listed in the above thread.

Two caveats.

1: The FE formula was specific to the seasonal equinox dates, so it only works two days a year. I was not there on the fall equinox, although I was only off by a few days. The photos posted below were taken at sunset on September 12, 2017, ten days before the equinox. So I would expect that the result might shift by a few degrees.

2: I intended to take the magnetic declination into account. But once I looked it up, I found that it was only 3 degrees. Since I was working with a handheld compass, that small of a declination was not really a factor.

For that date and location, RE math (via timeanddate.com) predicted a sunset at 6:51pm CDT at a compass heading of 275 degrees.
FE math (see caveat above) predicted a sunset at compass heading of 326 degrees. This is towards the northwest which is about what I would expect looking at the FE animations.

My observation was that the sunset happened precisely at the time and direction according to RE math (via timeanddate.com). I found it difficult to have proper exposure and focus on the sunset and compass in the same frame. So in the pictures below you can two shots. In one you can see the sunset and a post on the beach, a volleyball net post I think. The post roughly points towards the sunset. in the second picture you can see my compass resting on the balcony pointing towards magnetic north. If you zoom in on the compass, you can see the sunset is at 275 degrees. The post in both pictures can used to judge the alignment.

The direction predicted by FE math (326 degrees) can not be seen in the picture. In order to view the sky at that angle I had to go through the condo and stand on the front side of the building.

Clearly, the FE equation doesn't remotely match observations made directly by the human eye. And the RE math does.

I have seen some posts by Tom Bishop asking for proof that timeanddate.com use a round Earth model. As if he assumes they must have some disclaimer or something indicating what model of the Earth they believe in. The expectation to find an answer to that question on their website is absurd. However, it is plain by browsing some of their site and back issues of their newsletters that they believe the Earth to be round and to be found orbiting the sun.

How does anyone take the flat Earth model seriously when it can't predict basic things we can see with our own eyes?

335

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Old video footage of space

« on: September 12, 2017, 01:00:06 AM »

And before you get too excited about oh yeah we pulled off the photo shoot on the moon. Do just a little research into the fakery. No camera/film could have survived.

"This is the first time we've been able to measure the high energy particles in the heart of the radiation belts," Mazur said. "We're able to measure at the one billion electron volt level; particles at that energy are virtually impossible to shield against. They will easily penetrate half-inch thick aluminum plate." Particles at that energy level are known to cause a range of damages to spacecraft, from physical degradation to instrument malfunctions and false readings.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-12-van-allen-probes-reveal-dynamics.html#jCp

So Mr. Critical thinktank, if you can fake the moon landing you can surely fake skylab and some cliff divers from Ringlings performing.

I looked at the article you quoted. How odd that you didn't quote the paragraph that followed the one you quoted:

"NASA built these spacecraft to be super tough, and thank goodness we did," says APL's Nicky Fox, Van Allen Probes deputy project scientist. "The instruments are seeing the exact sorts of damaging effects we designed the spacecraft to survive."

And I'm not even going to dwell on the irony that you are using results taken from a space mission, to explain how space missions are fake.
 

336

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earths orbit cant be oval as its diameter alters by 3%

« on: September 11, 2017, 06:47:39 PM »

Technically, it is an ellipse, not an oval. See here for an explanation. http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-ellipse-and-vs-oval/

While it is an ellipse, it is close to being a circle, only a slight ellipse. So it doesn't really drive the seasons.

There are other exhibits of objects in the solar system with extreme ellipse orbits, like Haley's comet for example.

337

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: September 11, 2017, 06:08:08 PM »

3DGeek, if there was a "like" button our your post, I would click it.

338

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help for my ENG project/ answer questions about tfes for the outside world

« on: September 11, 2017, 06:05:39 PM »

1. What would you say is the most defining attribute of this discourse community aside from the stated ideology (that the earth is flat)? What can you say is the most vibrant denominator in the followers of tfes?

For full disclosure, I have only posted here for a short time, so my opinions are based over a short time frame, and are also influenced by various videos I have seen on YouTube and the comments posted there. In my mind I am answering in regards to believers in FET in general, as a group that also includes the proponents on this specific site.

I think the biggest common attribute is a mistrust of government and scientific authorities, a contrary nature one that borders on a religious zeal. If a person sees something that they don't understand or doesn't fit with what they can sense, the normal inclination is question it and look for an answer from someone capable of explaining it. The FET believers have a mistrust that leads them to become convinced that anything that conflicts with their senses or understanding can only be driven by a mass conspiracy to fool the people. I suspect there is a weird sense of pride and purpose they lull themselves into by being in the tiny group to not fall for the evil conspiracy.

A secondary attribute I see is in how they view evidence. NASA can release tens of thousands of hours of video over decades. A FET believer can spot for one second a spec of debris floating in an unexpected direction (proves it was filmed in a studio) or the corner of a t-short pointing out (proves the astronauts were on wire supports) and then become absolutely convinced that they have caught NASA's lie. Therefore this proves everything NASA ever did was fake, all part of the conspiracy.

On the other hand, they look at one drawing made by an FET believer and accept the whole of all FET without questioning anything, even if it conflicts with what they see with their eyes. Just look at those animations they show with the sun and moon revolving around the north pole. Do the phases of the moon match what you see if you look up? Of course not, but FET believers believe 100% of FET with 0% skepticism, the complete opposite of their approach to everything else. Everything not FET is to have doubt thrown upon it, sometime just to derail conversations I think. I actually saw post from Tom Bishop (A Zetetic Council Member) where he remanded someone to prove that GPS works. Seriously?

2. How did you first become involved with the Flat Earth Society?

For me it started with the recent solar eclipse. I was looking at videos online and started seeing flat Earth videos in the YouTube suggestions. At first I didn't think there were actually people that believed in flat Earth, but I guess there are. I started making some comments on the videos trying to explain things. It was apparent that some people refused to accept reality. But I still did some posting hoping to help those who were open minded are were really looking for information.

3. What actions have you taken so far (if any) to further the agenda of tfes?

I do not wish to further their agenda, quite the opposite. But to be fair, I came to this site to seek some specific information that I could validate through basic observation against the accepted RET. Hoping to complete that soon.

4. What is your commitment level to this ideal? Are you one hundred percent sure of your path and a ferocious advocate or a curious individual interested in different ideas?

I firmly believe that we live on a sphere orbiting the sun. It would take substantial and concrete evidence to convince me otherwise. I studied astronomy for years and considered it as a possible career until my early college years. In years of reading books and magazines, years of watching and studying both space and the space program, hundreds of nights in my front yard with a telescope, I never saw anything that conflicted with round Earth theory.

339

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Old video footage of space

« on: September 11, 2017, 03:09:41 PM »

Excellent and detailed response there 3DGeek!

340

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: September 11, 2017, 01:28:36 PM »

I'm assuming it'll be biodegradable luminous pink dye sprayed out of NASA aircraft to help with the coverup.  :-)

LOL