Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Or at any other distance. That isn't how perspective works and it isn't what the horizon is.From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.
The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.
I have suggested an experiment you can do to prove that. Get a couple of friends with boats, get them sail away from the shore.
You will notice that they are a discernible distance apart when they disappear over the horizon.
I've also suggested an experiment to help you understand how long shadows can be cast only by a light source PHYSICALLY low to the ground.
And I've suggested a few times doing some observations of the sun or moon and triangulating to prove they are as close as you suppose.
I look forward to your results.
I see. Well, no it isn't. The horizon is simply where the earth meets the sky.Quote from: AllAroundTheWorldQuotePlease note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.
I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.
The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object. The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.
To be honest, I don't know what a horizon would look like on a flat earth.
On a globe it's a sharp line when looking out to sea because the earth curves away from you. Look along the edge of a ball - sharp line where the surface curves away from you.
That's why the horizon is further away when you get higher and the horizon line dips further below eye level with height.
These are observable and measurable and prove we live on a globe.
I guess a good way to prove that the horizon is not just where perspective lines meet would be to sail two ships maybe a mile or two apart away from you. Before they dip over the horizon they should still be a noticeable distance apart. This is an experiment you could probably organise as you live near the ocean.
If perspective points met at the horizon then the horizon would be a dot, not a line. If the horizon is what you say then why do only the horizontal lines meet and not the vertical? Do you actually think that horizontal perspective lines work differently to vertical perspective lines?
To respond to your other points:
All zoom does is make things bigger. So if a ship is truly half sunken then no amount of zoom will restore it. If the ship is not over the horizon but it's simply too far to see distinctly then optical zoom will make it clearer, that's all optical zoom does. It's not about "unmerging" perspective lines. They aren't merged in the first place any more than distant train tracks are merged. It's just that the limitations of your eye makes them harder to distinguish.
Once more: Shadow length and angle are determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object. Not your or anyone else's perspective. Otherwise in your "row of lamps" thought experiment I as an observer from the side would see the shadow cast downwards as I can see the light is physically above your hand, you with your raised hand would see it cast upwards because of your perspective. That is not what is observed. The shadow is cast downwards for both people.
Again, do an experiment with a torch in a dark room. The only way you can cast long shadows is if the torch is PHYSICALLY near the ground.
At a distance of 6000 miles you are seriously suggestion that a gap of THREE THOUSAND MILES can't be seen?
For the beach to be obscured by waves then a close wave would simply have to be taller in apparent size than the people on the beach's apparent size. And I think we both agree that things get smaller with distance. As you keep saying, a dime can hide an elephant. But the only way a dime can hide an elephant if you're looking at ground level is the dime to be VERY close and the elephant far away. So actually closer waves are more likely to hide the distant beach than ones on the horizon which will be too small to discern - that's why the horizon at sea looks flat, yes there are waves but they are too small at that distance to notice.
So if you're 20 inches above the water then close waves are pretty likely to block distant beach or building unless you're higher than them - the video posted of the distant building being hidden by the curve of the earth was clearly done from above the waves level.
I've yet to see documentary proof of your experiment. You don't take "this is what I observed" as good enough evidence from anyone else (apart from Rowbotham, strangely, who as I may have mentioned thought the moon was translucent which some would think invalidates his other "proofs".
And SpaceX literally just launched a satellite into an orbit around the poles today.
That is great news. Give us its NORAD ID so we can track it.
Why are you so fixated on them going over a pole? And they only appear to travel in waves because that is their 3D elliptical path around the earth projected on to a 2D surface.
To have absolute proof that they can.
Right now I don't think they can because they don't.
If they don't then why?
And a FE answers that question why.
Honestly, don't you guys have anything better to do?
You've obviously got as much time on your hands as I have. I joined Feb 11, and have 40-odd posts, you joined end of January and have 70-odd.
Why do you find it so unreasonable that I query what GPS and NASA have to do with each other, and draw comparison between your mention of NASA, and the lack of NASA satellites?
If the standard response is going to be "Look in the Wiki" every time, then why have the forum?
Isn't it interesting, though, here on the forum where there's the opportunity to defend the theory, to explain how the Sun stays the same size in the sky as it's moving further away, that it disappears even when there's supposedly a clear line of sight to it - there's nobody in the entire flat Earth community willing to explain their point of view.
Except for the books we have written over the last 150 years and the Wiki which talks about that, right?
This has been discussed a bunch of times even since I've been looking here, which isn't that long.
But I have searched the Wiki and GPS is not mentioned at all, neither are satellites.
Satellites are used in so many arenas - GPS, Weather satellites, Satellite TV - that if there is a Flat Earth stance on how all this works then it would be good to add it to the Wiki.
Please help with a 1 paragraph summary of how this system we all use actually works. Currently 4 systems live.See, you guys believe we live under a dome. If we did, it would be impossible to have satellites. The GPS is made up of satellites that use data to find your position on the globe. Therefore, it would not be possible on a flat earth.
Read the wiki and use the search function. This has literally been discussed dozens of times.
Satellites are fake and other methods are used is the general explanation.
See, you guys believe we live under a dome. If we did, it would be impossible to have satellites. The GPS is made up of satellites that use data to find your position on the globe. Therefore, it would not be possible on a flat earth.
Wouldn't you have to shrink your eyes as well and your site of view or am I missing something here ?
So... you're saying that if I lied even once, then odds are I'm a complete sham that working with the UN to dominate mankind?
The little boy who cried wolf understood.
If you lied purposely to try to get me to do something for financial gain I would never trust you again.
Thats what i taught my children, no one believes a lair.
I'm not following. What does this have to do with the original topic?
Government Cooperation?
The post is dead on topic.
Governments are under the UN jurisdiction and if they are caught lying about global warming the odds are they are lying about everything else.
The government uses NOAA as the source to inform the pubic of where the poles are moving.
And the info they are providing is false. "50 years of Victory" north pole marking data has proven it.
All of the alphabet gangs cooperate. Space travel and global warming are huge money makers so why would a country shot itself in the foot and cut that revenue?
Tax payers make the countries go around.
Astronaut finds water pooling in helmet during spacewalk
He pissed his space suit. lol
ISS international space station can't explain scuba gear and bubbles in space
😂Astro-not Scott Kelly Questioned About "Bubbles In Space" ✅ Flat Earth
They are flecks of paint. Oh my god.
Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.
This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/
‘Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth’
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-worlds-wealth/
Because this will eventually come up, as per the question of why the sun does not shrink in size if it is disappearing to perspective, that may be answered by this article in our Wiki.
What I have written and linked above is how sunset works in Earth Not a Globe, and in the current Flat Earth model. There are no good rebuttals to this, as the basic tenets to the workings of perspective are backed up by experience and observation.
What we tend to get are some complaints about how perspective doesn't cause objects to REALLY meet, but again, no one is claiming that the sun is crashing into the earth. Anyone can see that this argument is not really valid when put into context.
Other rebuttals involve an attempt at using math to show that the sun would never reach the horizon; but anyone who uses this math would need to show that perspective operates according to the axioms of that continuous mathematical model, as opposed to operating according to what is experienced. The debater is unable to show or cite anything showing perspective to work in that way; and so, since this argument is made without evidence, it is discarded without evidence.