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.
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?
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 I move the camera vertically upwards and leave the sun alone - the image gets closer to the horizon - not further away.
Not a very strong video for either scenario there Tom. The majority of the clouds are never lit up from the perspective of the camera, either on the top, or the side. The bottoms aren't possible to see because of how dense the cloud cover is.
Tom, there is an underlying confusion that needs to be cleared up, I think.
[snip]
All the time, the candle is above your hand. If you want its light to hit your hand at any negative angle you need to bend the light. You have confirmed in other threads that light doesn't bend. Ergo, case closed.
And if you think that that's bad, consider that the sun at the FE sunset, is actually at a 23°inclination, way above the 12° of the figure b in my diagram.
See why I wanted you to draw a diagram?
Nice try, but no, Tom! First off, it sounds like you didn't read my previous post carefully - please find it in you to re-read it again until you understand what actually said.
Parallel lines always remain parallel (otherwise they wouldn't be called parallel lines, now would they?), they just SEEM to converge from the viewpoints I showed in my video.
The viewpoint WE WERE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING is the one from the side (equivalent to what I was showing with the camera above the notepad with the lines) -- this is where the FE "understanding" of perspective fails miserably, and this is the error in the video you posted (from the side view, the lines should remain parallel). You have not addressed this issue, and flerfers are yet to produce a convincing drawing of their model of how the sun supposedly moves away. Do give this a try, we would all love to see your attempt at this.
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 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.
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.
Tom subscribes to the bipolar model, and while there are many problems with it (imo) this isn't one of them as it allows two 'discs' for stars, one over the Northern hemiplane, and one over the Southern hemiplane. This can manage to account for most of the different star problems.
Does the bipolar model account for being able to look south from 3 continents and see the same stars?
+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?
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).
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:
-- I think you're letting him off the hook to easily!The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.
Nope, it provides an erroneous depiction of perspective. When viewed from the side, a distance away, parallel lines remain parallel. Here's a video I just made to demonstrate this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l0e7yca4uk2y836/IMG_0081.MOV?dl=0 In my video, the view from above onto the entire page shows parallel lines, just like the surface of the supposedly flat earth and the sun that supposedly travels over it in the diagram 3D made. You see the lines begin to converge ONLY when I move the camera closer to one end of the lines. The video you posted is a typical example of flerfer confusion: the author is wrongfully using converging lines in a side view, which never occurs.
Thoughts?
OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:
Suppose I'm some distant viewer - on a mountain that's a little lower than the height of the clouds off to the South of the Sun...with Cloud over to the North-West. I would see the sun and the under-lit cloud - all from the side view...yes? Since it's noon for me now, the sun is high in the sky.
I call the little stick figure guy on my cellphone and he says "Hey - that cloud off to your North West is being lit from the underside!
Would not the scene that unfolds look very much like my diagram? How would *I* see the light rays travelling?
Then tell us what is incorrect about my diagram? The sun is at the correct height - the horizontal distance is appropriate for noon (at the right) and sunset (towards the left).
Reality allows use to draw side-views does it not? So do tell which elements of my diagram are incorrect. All of the diagrams you usually post are side-views...aren't I allowed a side-view?
You have NOT demonstrated anything and you seem to be carefully ignoring my diagram that explains the problem here:
Recall: Light travels in straight lines (the blue line) and not in curved lines (the orange line) - so how exactly does the light from the sun light up the underside of the cloud?
Just tell us which path the light from the sun takes. This shouldn't be a difficult question for you.
Please stop dodging this VERY simple question!
It is an image of the shock front arrive times in a PDF. It is on page 3. You will have to click and scroll to page 3 on this one as there is no direct link to the image.The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf
Please quote the appropriate data for us.
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf
Yes, because your hand is not actually above the light pole in the distance. So yes, it's impossible to have your hand be above the light pole. You can have your hand be above where you perceive the light pole to be, but it is not actually above the light pole. The light from the lamp won't be hitting the bottom of your hand still. This is basic perspective Tom, a course you apparently missed. Something at height X, will never actually be above something at height Y assuming Y>X. By the same token, something below you, cannot appear on top of something above you. The hand in your image is now above you. The ground will never appear to be over one of the streetlights though. Perspective lines *meet* in the distance, they do not cross. They can't cross, because in reality the lines are actually parallel.
