### 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.

### Messages - 3DGeek

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« on: Today at 04:00:05 AM »
I have read the Wiki and FAQ; (UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2)

But am struggling to find either a reason why or proof that the earth IS accelerating at 9.8 metres per second:

Wiki states: "The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct."

I was hoping that a FE could explain why this theory exists without this reasoning and evidence? Why does it make sense to you and how did this exact speed come about? As for the several explanations for UA; what are they please as I could not see them listed anywhere?

many thanks

I confess I'm a bit puzzled as to why FE'ers do this.

If the Earth is an infinite disk, of decent thickness - then regular "per Isaac Newton" gravity is a reasonable explanation.

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: Today at 03:17:38 AM »
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

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

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

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

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

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

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: Today at 03:13:49 AM »
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

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

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

What?!?  Who's side are you on?

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

The only role the brain has in this is that when we see an image with perspective in it, our brains are able to understand that this is due to distance rather than some object actually becoming smaller.

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset
« on: September 20, 2017, 06:54:57 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.

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.

5
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« on: September 20, 2017, 06:40:13 PM »
Seems that a lot of these threads are bumping up against the issue of "perspective". Flat-earthers seem to think that it's a magical force that makes all the things they wish weren't true disappear. Perhaps we should start another thread where we can try to define this concept together? Here's the dictionary definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perspective notice, no mention of mysterious forces here..

Tom appears to want to discuss it on this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785.0 ...which is fine because that's where I started to debate it.   Tom also likes to post a video that "explains" it.  I've debunked that in this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.0

Quote
One obvious flaw with the FE argument is that they seem to think that perspective causes parallel lines to actually touch or maybe even cross, whereas this is not at all what happens. There is no evidence of this happening, and common sense & logic tell us that this is impossible.

Well, the problem is deeper than that.

In my view - perspective isn't a "thing" in it's own right.  It's an "emergent property".   Kinda like a "traffic jam" is only a property of the motions of cars.

I can easily reproduce the effects of normal perspective (why things look smaller in the distance, etc) with a simple pinhole camera analogy - and using only the fact that light travels in straight lines and the law of similar triangles.

This produces an equation that is used throughout computer graphics, movie making, lens design, etc.

But Tom (NOT all RE'ers) seems to think that perspective is a fundamental property of light.   In the video he references (again, see my debunking here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.0 ) the FE'ers are making a simple error:  They are using the "emergent property" of perspective and ADDING ON a second layer of perspective!   This double-counting is the root cause of their misunderstanding.

The video (and my debunking thereof) makes this error crystal clear - and when I correct the error, lo and behold, FE sunsets don't work anymore.

I actually have more respect for the "Electromagnetic accelerator" concept that was Tom's old idea for how FE sunsets happen.  It's a lot harder to disprove...but he says that he now disfavors it.

Honestly, in his position, I'd back up and go with it because it's a lot easier to believe.

Quote
In another thread, I think Tom was getting close to saying that perspective somehow changes reality (which it so obviously doesn't, it only affects the viewer's perception of reality). Perhaps we need to start with the concept of asymptote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote -- In essence, while the parallel lines do seem to converge at a distance, they never actually meet, and the certainly do not cross. By the way, as an aside, this explains the whole "light spreading through the clouds" phenomenon, that flerfers like to use as supposed "proof" that the sun is way closer than science tell us it is. [sarcasm] After all, why do we need observations, measurements, logic, and reasoning, when it just looks like it's closer? [/sarcasm]

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: September 20, 2017, 06:12:08 PM »
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer.
Nobody denies that - we all see it happen with our own eyes every day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it!

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

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

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

Quote
The phenomenon of perspective squishes everything to the horizon; and trying to represent it on a small scene a few inches across is invalid without artificially doing things like ascending the lands and creating a vanishing point in order to give a proper depiction of perspective.
Again, I dispute that - but again, let us assume for now that you're right so you can cleanly and clearly answer the question above without further distractions.

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: September 20, 2017, 05:34:27 PM »
The heart of the problem here is Tom's insistance that "perspective" is somehow a law of physics that transcends the boundaries of space (and quite possibly, time).

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

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

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

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

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

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

But rather than put words into his mouth - I'd just like to hear similarly simple, straightforward answers about where the light rays travel.

8
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: September 20, 2017, 04:35:03 PM »
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.

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

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

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

The point here is that the diagram is based upon what you tell us is the literal position of the physical sun orb.

9
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun
« on: September 20, 2017, 04:31:19 PM »
In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.

Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.

For once, I have to agree with the FE'ers here.

Einsteins' general relativity says that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a uniform acceleration and a uniform gravitational field.   No possible experiment can distinguish between them.

Since the gravitational field of the Round Earth is basically uniform (at least for day-to-day experiences) - it could indeed be replaced by a uniform acceleration - and you would not be able to tell the difference.

The issue of the Earth speeding up until it's going faster than lightspeed is also not a problem.   Einstein's special relativity tells us that you can't meaningfully measure speed except as speed RELATIVE to something else.   Since the FE'ers claim that the Earth, the sun, moon, stars, planets...EVERYTHING is accelerating at the same rate - there is nothing left in the universe to measure the Earth's speed relative to.   So even asking what it's speed is would be a meaningless question.

So - those two SIMPLE problems don't debunk the Flat Earths' "Universal acceleration" claim.

But - as usual with FEism, you can look a little deeper and find the flaws in it.

SO: I said before that Earth's gravitational field is only approximately uniform.   But gravity varies with altitude (less at mountain tops, more in deep valleys) - it varies at the poles (more) and equator (less) - and it even varies a tiny bit according to the types of rocks under your feet.

Universal Acceleration can only simulate a uniform gravitational field.   So if things worked the way they say, we wouldn't get all of these variations in gravity - it would have the same, exact value everywhere.

They try to 'fix' this problem (I'd prefer the word "botch") by claiming various things - such as that the sun and moon (and perhaps also the stars) do indeed have true, 'for real' gravity.    This is needed (for example) to explain how there can be tides caused by the Moon's gravity.

But why there would be changes in gravity at the poles and the equator is not well described.

10
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:55:46 PM »
Let's make it even simpler, so even Tom's limited understanding of geometry can withstand:

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

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

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

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

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

HOW THE HECK DOES THE FE WORLD GET SUNSETS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:-)

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

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

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

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

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

So...we're back to asking you "How is it possible for light to travel in a straight line from the sun, through the pinhole (or through your iris...same deal) and hit the film at the back of the camera (or your retina...same deal) at the same exact spot as the horizon line.

11
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Homemade footage of curvature of the earth
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:45:30 PM »
LOVE how the sound becomes inaudible as it leaves the bulk of the atmosphere.

Oh - cool!  I had turned the sound down while it was playing...neato!

12
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:42:03 PM »
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?

It can put 3 inch tall railroad tracks at your 5'8" eye level. What do you think?
Yes or no Tom.

Does perspective adjust the actual physical location of objects in the real world?

The problem we have here is that Tom can proudly announce "PERSPECTIVE DID IT!" without ever demonstrating how or why his weird take on perspective actually happens.

Real world perspective (irrespective of flat or round earth models) is a simple consequence of the way eyes, cameras and such like function...hence the pinhole camera analogy.

We can (and DO) routinely use computer graphics to overlay the real world.  It's called "augmented reality".   I've done a lot of work in that area as a part of my job.

Our computer graphics have to line up PERFECTLY with the real world, or the fakery will be obvious.   So it follows that whatever laws of perspective we use must be an excellent match for the real world.

The equation (which I handily derived for you from first principle in the Pinhole camera thread) is super-simple:

height-on-screen = constant x real-world-height / distance-from-camera-to-object

The constant is calculated from the size of the camera and of the screen.

The proof of this is simple geometry - known since Euclid - the demonstration of it's efficacy is that computer graphics generate the right images - and with augmented reality, any mismatch between the math and reality would be very obvious...and it's not.

But Tom cannot grasp this...I can't see why - the concept is SO simple.

The video he so often presents is bullshit for a couple of very good reasons - so I've started a new thread to debunk THAT.

13
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:25:59 PM »
While our OP *really* needs to read the Wiki because it does indeed provide explanations for maybe 75% of the FE'ers claims...I would be remiss in pointing out that even by FE standards, it's HORRIBLY out of date.

Many of the discussions here have shown the the "official" position of TFES.org differs substantially from what the Wiki says it is.

14
##### Flat Earth Debate / Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:00:51 PM »
I'm not sure what the best title for this subject is...so I went with "altered perspective".

Tom keeps on waving this video at us - so this thread is an effort to explain (and debunk) that video.

The error it makes is to double-count the "perspective" effect.

I'm going to talk at the video at specific time points into it - so I suggest you open a second browser window with the video running in it and pause at the times I indicate to read my comments:

So listen through to around 1:50 and hit Pause.

The picture he's looking at shows that the further away the object gets, the smaller the angle to the ground it gets.  This is reasonable - light travels in straight lines.  If we extended the diagram off to the right with more and more equally spaced suns, the angle would get smaller and smaller - right?

At a billion miles, the angle would be a tiny fraction of a degree - at a trillion miles, still smaller - and at INFINITY the angle would be ZERO...or as close to zero as matters (the math term is "Infinitesimal" - one divided by infinity - not strictly zero - but essentially that).

This IS the standard law of perspective.   The further two parallel train tracks lead away from you, the narrower the perceived angle between them.  But even at a billion miles, they don't quite meet.  Only infinitely far from the eye to those train tracks come together.

OK - un-pause the video...stop it again at 2:07 or so.

He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".

But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero.   If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?

OK - un-pause again...stop again at 2:43.

So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

At 2:43, he's just added some suns moving downwards - but the sun isn't moving downwards in the real world - only in the eye of the viewer.   The original diagram is showing the path of the actual photons...the rays of light traveling from the sun to the viewer.

OK - so onwards to a picture of a wall...pause again at 3:27.

He's overlaid a side-on diagram onto a sloping wall...WTF?  How does that prove anything?  You can't just take a 2D side-on diagram and paste it onto a photograph taken at some random angle and demand that they line up perfectly!  What kind of a bullshit claim is *THAT*?

If he had blown up the diagram until it was about 20' long and 10' high, so the stick-figure's eye is level with the camera that took the photo - and pasted the giant diagram onto the wall...so both the diagram and the wall are at the same orientation...and THEN taken the photo...guess what would have happened?

Well...let's try that shall we?   It takes a bit of fancy 3D graphics work (that's what I do for a living)...but the result is this:

It's hard to reproduce the exact camera angle of the original photo - and the low-res diagram has blurred out horribly because it has to be stretched to match the perspective in the photo - but you can see that the stickman's eyeline matches the eyeline in the photo - and the sun gets closer to the horizon in the same way that the strips on the wall do.

It's not perfect...but you should be able to see what I mean.

So if you could match the camera angles in the diagram and the wall...the result would be perfect...and of course if you do the reverse - and photograph the wall side-on and lay it on top of the diagram, that would be perfect too.

So this stage in his "proof" doesn't prove a darned thing - other than that the guy who made the video is clueless.

Watch again until 3:30.

Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?

Look again at the original picture of that wall:

Notice that behind the horizontal strip, there are a bunch of vertical supports, which are clearly equally spaced by whoever hung that wall?   This is VERY convenient for our proof.  (Thanks video guy!)

Suppose I put a red dot over the intersection of each vertical support and the "eye line".

And above each one, I draw green dots for the position of the sun as 1pm, 2pm, 3pm, 4pm, 5pm and 6pm...just like he tried to do.  I'm allowing the sun to move the distance between two support strips every hour - which (in the real world) is a constant speed:

What we see is that FAR from reaching the "horizon" at 6pm, the effect of perspective is shortening the *visual* distance between the consecutive sun positions...so although the sun is indeed lowering in the sky - it'll never reach it because it's moving smaller and smaller distances with each hour that passes.

Another way to think about that is that perspective works in both the "X" and "Y" directions...but it also works in "Z":

Equally spaced pillars getting closer together as they get shorter.  The number of pillars needed before the height of the building is zero has to be infinite because every time you halve the height of the building, you double the number of columns you need:

This is WHY the FE sun can never set.

Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:

The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".

The problem is that he's guilty of PRECISELY the thing that he falsely accuses the original diagram of.  He's using a 2D representation fo the sun on a 3D photograph of a real world thing.

You simply can't do that.

You can prove your point with a 2D diagram - or you can prove it with a 3D photographic visualization - but the instant you mix the two - you screwed up.

So the video is at best misleading.   Clearly the guy who made it DOESN'T understand the first thing about how perspective works.

OK - watch again until 4:50.

Notice how at around 4:50 he cheats and adds more lines at the top of the screen than there really are...naughty!  And carefully STOPS drawing the lines at the bottom of the screen when they are in danger of revealing his lies.  Misleading!  Those lines at the top of the screen that are almost vertical...those don't happen in the real world do they?

So the video whitters on and at 5:25, he's back with his incorrect diagram of the sun's motion.

And out at 5:46, he again accuses someone of using non perspective lines on a perspective drawing - while, ironically, his own screwup of PRECISELY THAT is in the background!  Love it!

This explanation gets to crazy levels of insanity by 6:36 in the video as he overlays his 2D side-view drawing onto a perspective drawing and tries to extract information from that!

So...RE-BUNKED!  (is that even a word?)

15
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« on: September 19, 2017, 07:38:43 PM »
If I move the camera vertically upwards and leave the sun alone - the image gets closer to the horizon - not further away.

Your pinhole camera argument is not very clear. This is why I haven't replied to it. If you move the camera upwards "the image gets closer to the horizon". What does this mean?
OK - so here is that same diagram - only showing the camera before and after I move it upwards.

Remember that the image inside a film/pinhole camera is always upside down...right?

So as I move the camera from the bottom position to the higher position, the rays of light, coming from the sun hit the back of the camera (where the film would be) higher up the photographic plate...which means that (when you turn the photograph right-side-up) the sun would be closer to the middle of the plate...so in a Flat Earth setting - when the balloon rises upwards, the sun would appear to go DOWNWARDS...not upwards...on the photographic plate.

However, if you don't understand my pinhole camera diagram at all - then may I suggest that we discuss this in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785 instead of here - because this business of moving the camera around is just confusing the original concept that the diagram is attempting to explain.

16
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Cassini–Huygens mission
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:59:33 PM »
What does FE'er think of Cassini–Huygens mission?
They believe that everything NASA does is faked...end of story.

17
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:58:09 PM »
I have a BURNING question
If gravity doesn't exist, and the sun's mass and distance from Earth is smaller, then what exactly makes is rotate? And on top of that, how does it even know when to come up and down. Another question... How do you explain pictures taken from the ISS and other satellites. Also, why would Earth be the ONLY flat thing in the universe. Why would everything else be round like the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the planets in our solar system. And don't subside this question.

I can tell you right now what the FE'ers will say next (and for once I agree with them):  PLEASE READ THE WIKI BEFORE POSTING HERE!!

Honestly - their explanations (hokey though they are) for all of your questions can be found there.

The arguments that effectively defeat Flat Earthism are quite a bit more subtle than the ones you posted here.  You might read some of them.

18
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:54:04 PM »
Nobody is denying that the sun sometimes illuminates the tops of the clouds.  Demonstrating that proves nothing!

The problem you have is that a other times (most obviously when the clouds are relatively high and during the last light of sunset) the clouds are often lit from below.

Proving that sometimes "A" happens is not a valid disproof that at other times "B" happens.

The sunset ended in the video with the tops of the clouds being illuminated, not the bottom of the clouds. At 00:45 to 00:50 we can see that the very top of the clouds are illuminated as the sun disappears.

The sun is setting from the point of view of a high altitude airplane - we've agreed that the sun sets at different times at different altitudes.

This video does nothing to prove that from the point of view of someone BELOW the clouds, the undersides were not lit at some point in time.

We have plenty of photographs that CLEARLY show the sun lighting clouds from below...if you can't explain those kinds of photos - then you don't have an argument.

Go to Google...click on the "Images" button - then search on the words "Clouds lit from below" - and you'll see many hundreds of photos of clouds lit from below (and a bunch of other junk that isn't that).

The point is that this is a phenomenon that CLEARLY happens.  It's a frequent thing...it's very beautiful, so a lot of people take pictures of it.

If your theory of the world is valid, then you must be able to explain every single photograph like that.

RET has no problem at all explaining them.

19
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:46:43 PM »

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.

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.

20
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:43:03 PM »
I'm so glad you said that Tom. Prove it. Let's see these clouds with the tops lit up in Orange. Or darkness-orange-sunlight in bands across the clouds.

Here is a video which shows the top of clouds orange and the bottom of the clouds being dark:

Quote
The plane of the sun cannot go below the plane of vision of your eyes, and when the clouds are below you like that, it can't end up below them either by the same token. The plane of the clouds and that of the sun are still parallel after all. Just because the limitation of your eye sees them meet, doesn't stop them from not being able to ever cross.

This is entirely possible. The clouds are above the horizon and the sun is at the horizon - just like how you can put your hand above the horizon and all distant telephone poles. This was already discussed over the last couple of pages.

Nobody is denying that the sun sometimes illuminates the tops of the clouds.  Demonstrating that proves nothing!

The problem you have is that a other times (most obviously when the clouds are relatively high and during the last light of sunset) the clouds are often lit from below.

Proving that sometimes "A" happens is not a valid disproof that at other times "B" happens.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >