1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 24, 2017, 07:16:37 PM »

The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.

that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?

Watch the video in the OP.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 24, 2017, 07:11:11 PM »

A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.

P1. Cameras without lenses experience perspective
C. Perspective is not a lens phenomenon

B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.

Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.

C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.

The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of proof

« 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.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 24, 2017, 06:10:42 PM »

You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?

The Ancient Greeks, who came up with that theory, have never demonstrated that hypothesis. No attempt of evidence has been provided, or even attempted. That idea is completely hypothetical. Why should we base reality on completely hypothetical ideas?

You claim to know the "rules" of the universe, but have no piece of evidence to point towards to justify your idea that perspective lines infinitely approach each other.

The only true rules come from the universe itself, and it is observed that a horizon exists. If your hypothetical rule list can't comprehend with that when you attempt to make a model, then tough. It's wrong.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 24, 2017, 05:38:57 PM »

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?

You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time

It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with these assumptions?

You have no knowledge on how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?

Read this line carefully everyone:

If a light ray starts off at the sun (around 3,000 miles above the ground) - and if it travels in a straight line - and if it ends up going horizontally into our eyes  (or into a pinhole camera) to produce a sunset - THEN the Earth cannot be flat.

If that space of 3,000 miles is merged to one point, and that point is level with our eye, than it makes perfect sense that the photons travel along that path and reach our eye. The point is 90 degrees from zenith in its orientation around us; therefore the light is approaching the eye from that 90 degree angle.

If we see the sun at the horizon at that 90 degree angle, the sun also sees us at its horizon at a 90 degree angle. The photons are leaving the sun at the same angle they are coming in. 90 degrees. There is no contradiction.

You are assuming that it is only all incoming light that is squished with perspective. It is also all outgoing light that is squished. You are assuming that it is only human eyes that experience perspective. All objects experience perspective. From the POV of the sun, it is sending out a photon directly at the observer.

The actual path is IRRELEVENT in your attempted model of the scene because, as we have already discussed, the model is an incorrect representation of reality. It only represents how you think things should be based on rules which have never been seen. No one has ever seen your infinitely-approaching-perspective-lines nonsense. That is completely hypothetical.

The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 24, 2017, 02:26:14 AM »

Repeating for emphasis:

It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

This is a classic proof by contradiction.

1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)

badaboom, realest globe in the room

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of proof

« 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.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 23, 2017, 04:02:59 AM »

So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.

Thank you Tom - you just helped to disprove the flat earth!

In a FLAT earth - you're right, the peak of a mountain cannot ever be on the horizon...and my diagram elegantly demonstrates that.

In a ROUND earth - my diagram has to have a curved "ground" - and in that situation, the top of a mountain can indeed be on the horizon (or below it).

I do not claim my diagram proves that the earth is flat...to the contrary, it disproves it...which does not make it "wrong" - it makes it "right".

If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.

You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.

Your claim that "the ground rises to the horizon" is an oft-stated thing in FET - but it's not true.   If you fly a military fighter airplane with a heads-up-display, you see that the "artificial horizon" is considerably higher than the actual horizon at high altitudes - yet perfectly aligned with it at sea level.

The higher you go the farther the horizon would be, but unfortunately you do not listen very well. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. At extreme altitudes, such as from a military fighter jet in your example, you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere.  The true "horizon" at very high altitudes is farther than what you see.

You can tell that this is happening because at high altitudes where the artificial horizon on a plane's instrumentation is above the observable horizon, the horizon is no longer sharp or defined, and is seen as a gradual gradient. It should be no surprise, then, under such conditions basically absent of a horizon that the artificial horizon would be above the level of the land.

9

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: September 22, 2017, 03:10:02 PM »

If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap.

Tom you demonstrate an uncanny lack on knowledge of human physiology here. As you are talking hypothetically I will answer as such:

Imagine that 5g of garlic will kill 1000 cancer cells, logic follows that if I have 10,000 cancer cells I need only eat 50g of garlic and boom! Cancer gone.

The problem with this hypothesis is that the human digestive and metabolic system is not 100% efficient; hence why circa 24 hours after eating sweetcorn the husks can clearly be seen in one's faecal output. If I ate 50g of garlic not all of it would be digested, even if I ate 5,000g I may never reach the magic 50g I required. Think of it as a ceiling; the maximum amount of any given substance that the body can absorb.

The amount of garlic needed to cure the cancer can simply fall above the amount the body can digest.

There are other variables involved in terms of things such as stomach absorption, garlic quality, etc., but these are bad arguments which do not really show any fallacy with the statement.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 01:12:55 PM »

Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change?

Once again; perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, which is the determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.

Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to stick out of the horizon line. It is impossible for the mountain to even get to the horizon line.

This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 01:04:21 PM »

did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?

I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.

The diagram you posted seems to be a Round Earth model explanation for a horizon which we are not talking about.

The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.

The ground does rise to the horizon, overhead bodies like planes do descend to the horizon, and it is possible for the tops of mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 12:49:07 PM »

There is nothing wrong with the side view!

Yes, there is something wrong. Under that side view model things would infinitely approach the horizon, but never touch it. The fact that a distant mountain can get above the level of the horizon line shows that the model is inaccurate in its assumptions and representations of reality.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 12:47:11 PM »

The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.

The horizon is not represented in that side view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.

However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 05:33:08 AM »

The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world.

Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.

Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.

Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Perspective is not merely an "art concept". The horizon is seen in the real world; it's not purely artistic.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM »

You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.

Mathematics only reflects the model it is trying to describe. If the model is wrong, the math is wrong.

In order for 2 + 2 to equal 4, certain assumptions about the underlying model must be true. In some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 04:19:30 AM »

All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.

Who proved false the observation that high flying planes that fly over you move more consistently across the sky than very low planes that fly over you?

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?

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.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 03:26:44 AM »

The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:

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".

Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.

Therefore, if the sun is sufficiently far away to where the vertical planks are merged together, the distance the sun has to travel between states becomes constant. The horizontal dividers of different perceived lengths between the vertical planks that hold them together no longer exist.

The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance  (what is basically seen in the above picture).

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 02:46:31 AM »

That model isn't about the horizon. The horizon is an illusion of the eye. The model shows where the sun actually is. 20 degrees above the horizontal. Which means you need to figure out how perspective can not only account for that, but why it affects everything else too. Perspective is an artist tool, as is the vanishing point. Neither exist as physical realities.

So once again. Where is your proof/evidence that this all works the way you say it should and has to in order for your sun to set? Remember, the sun/moon can't be pointed to for your evidence here.

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.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 02:26:29 AM »

At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?

I don't have that equation. The fact that the horizon exists and that model says that the horizon does not exist is a simple enough demonstration that the model is inaccurate to reality.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 22, 2017, 02:20:24 AM »

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!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!

Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.

At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.

The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.

Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.