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 >
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.


(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.

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!

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.

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 differs substantially from what the Wiki says it is.

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 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 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 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 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 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?)

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 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 instead of here - because this business of moving the camera around is just confusing the original concept that the diagram is attempting to explain.

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.

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.

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 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'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.

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

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:

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.

1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
It's actually worse than that.  Tom's beloved "alternative perspective" concept would result in them being oval-shaped as well as smaller.
2) seeing pictures of "the real" Antarctica, the wall, the edge, the turtle - whatever it is you think is there?
The photo of the "ice wall" on the Wiki isn't even dry land - it's actually a photo of a large iceberg.
3) seeing a logical explanation of your take on this amazing force called "gravity", which I guess you ignore, or don't believe in, or just use other words like "density" or "acceleration" in its place (w/o really explaining anything)
None of the provided FE explanations cover the reason why gravity is less at the equator and more at the poles.  This rules out universal acceleration - so to fix that, they have to add gravity back in again and hand-wave about multiple effects going on here.
4) proper FE map with distances -- if your fantasy is indeed real, then why are you taking so long to go outside and map it all out? maybe you'll be the first one to reconcile all the flight time issues that have been pointed out oh so many times!
The problem they have is actually worse than that.  It takes a bit of math/geometry skills to understand the problem - but if you accept airline flight distances (or their flight times and airplane cruise speeds) - then there is no possible FE map that can work because the six distances between four cities that lie on the corners of a large quadrilateral can be shown to not be possible in a two-dimensional map.  Their ONLY recourse is to deny those flight distances/times/speeds are correct.
5) hearing an actual scientist (with like an actual degree in Physics or something, someone who's published real papers, done real research, maybe taught in a university)   come out in favor of FE and explain how it all really works
That would be amusing!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Homemade footage of curvature of the earth
« on: September 19, 2017, 12:56:25 PM »
The last of those videos is the most clear:


What's nice is that the video starts and ends on the ground - and is completely un-cut.

I grabbed this photo from near the beginning, when the camera is still on the ground:

...and has a nice, clear, high altitude shot (this one is at t=1h51m14s):

Of course we must eliminate all complaints about the lens - so we can take that first shot and draw some straight lines on it:

That clearly shows that whatever distortion there might or might not be - it preserves straight lines as straight lines - which is all we care about.
Then we can draw a straight line across the shot of the horizon at altitude:

...and clearly it's showing a significant expected in RET for a flight up at 100,000 feet.

The video is high quality - the levels of realism are FAR beyond even the best computer graphics available.  The guy who did this has a YouTube channel.  And it's pretty clear from watching it that this is not any kind of official NASA thing - it's just a guy who likes fritzing around with old weather balloons and cheap cameras:

About 4 minutes into this video... can see the balloon he used - clearly happening in the same neighborhood as the video that I took the still images from.

Seems like it's REALLY a stretch to call this "part of the conspiracy"'s unreasonable to say that the video could have been faked...and for 100% sure there is no significant camera lens distortion involved.  He even tells us that he swapped out the GoPro's standard "fish-eye" lens for a more appropriate lens.  So we don't expect significant distortion - and we don't find any in the imagery.

This is about as clear a demonstration as I could imagine.   Calling this "faked" is an act of desperation here!

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset
« on: September 19, 2017, 02:28:50 AM »
Screen shot of zoomed view. 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.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 02:18:57 AM »
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).

Watch the video. It goes over the error of those scenes. You have presented a non-perspective side view scene which takes place outside of the universe. It does not properly account for perspective. Perspective is not seen that way. Perspective is seen from a view where everything intersects with the vanishing point. You are presenting a geometric scene which disregards empirical perspective. Under your scheme it is impossible for any receding body to ever intersect with a vanishing point -- a scenario which is not seen to occur.

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?

Side-view can be fine, but your scene does not properly account for perspective. The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

The error with your illustration, specifically, is that the cloud would see the sun at the horizon near the vanishing point, due to the perspective that is not properly depicted, not high above it. The light is coming from the side, not above, since the horizon is at 90 degrees from zenith.

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?

You see, the problem with claiming that "perspective" did it - is that perspective looks different from different places.   If "perspective did it" - how does the cloud "know" where you're looking at it from so it can simultaneously glow orange for some people and be a silvery grey for other people?

I'm sorry - but perspective simply isn't REMOTELY able to explain this.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this Map....
« on: September 19, 2017, 02:10:05 AM »

Do round earth proponents insist that they had a map before "knowing" the shape of the earth?

No they created maps as they discovered new lands, setting sail in old wooden ships, travelling into the unknown. In today's age of international travel, global internet and modern technology I find it hard to fathom how anyone can dispute the shape of the world without fitting into place the existing knowledge such as the shapes and dimensions of countries/continents etc. Surely if the known dimensions of earth's land cannot be placed onto a flat earth model then the FE model must not be possible?

The FE'ers now claim that they don't know the map of the earth.

What has been shown here is that:

* If they admit of ANY means to measure distances short of a man walking along with one of these...(below)...then the RE'ers can immediately use those distances to disprove their map.

* If they declare knowledge of any distances whatever - then they risk some smarty-pants RE'er coming along and showing that they can't form a two-dimensional map.

So this leaves them at the awkard impasse - where they DARE NOT assert any real world distances - and DARE NOT accept any reasonably attainable distance measurement method as "allowed evidence".   When we come up with things like the speed of light limits for Internet Ping commands - those have to be trampled mercilessly just in case they might come up with a verifiable distance measurement.

If you so much as generally hint at the idea of using GPS, you'll be pummelled mercilessly.

True distance measurements (even fairly approximate ones) are DEATH to the FE cannot survive valid distances.

So - the FE'ers now have to cower in a world of total unknowns and DESPERATE complaints about trivial facts.

For example, it is now claimed (by Tom Bishop) that neither airlines nor airliner manufacturers know how fast their airplanes can fly?!!?!   He also claims that people who lay trans-oceanic cable laying ships often run out of cable because they are surprised by the distances involved.

This is DESPERATE argument...very sad actually.

Every week or so we find another way to poke holes in their doubt and force increasingly insane statements of disbelief from them.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: why do stars change on FE
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:59:39 AM »
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.

To translate this sentence into anything meaningful, you have to understand that Tom claims that light travels in straight lines - but in almost the same breath, claim that "perspective" can tie light rays into any pretzel shapes his heart desires without the need for further explanation.

He's still carefully avoiding answering the pinhole camera and clouds lit from underside diagrams which are simple enough for a 5 year old to understand - but which he's at a TOTAL loss to explain.

So when you hear "perspective" - you should mentally translate that to be "I have no clue".

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:47:55 AM »
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!

The light does not take that path because your side-view depiction of perspective is invalid and not in line with reality.

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).

The cloud is where it seems it should be and the blue line is a straight line (as you say it should be) for where the sunlight must hit the cloud.  I just don't see how the blue line can hit the underside of the cloud.

The orange line could - but it can't be right because you and I both agree about light travelling in straight lines.

Then we have our stick-man observer looking up at the clouds - just a few miles away - and wondering how come the underside of the cloud is orange.

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?

Does FET physics somehow disallow side-views?

Please let us continue to discuss this diagram because I don't think you've told us what's ACTUALLY wrong about it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« on: September 18, 2017, 11:34:59 PM »
Just for fun (I'm not trying to make any strong point here, please treat everything as merely anecdotal), I've pinged the website of my University from home. I know the precise location of both machines (one's right in front of me and I really hope it actually exists, and I've visited the other site on multiple occasions) - an average-sized Svarrior can walk that distance in 20-30 minutes. The times I've measured were in the ballpark of 119ms-138ms.

I guess it's not incorrect to say that my campus is less than 35,000km away from me. It's just also not very useful.

I absolutely agree.  Somewhere, there is some horribly slow piece of equipment in the way - and I won't deny that this can happen.  Some ISP's use geostationary satellites to transmit data instead of land lines.   Some routes have to go through a lot of "hops".

But AGAIN you're arguing something I agree with you on and missing the WHOLE POINT OF THIS.

The ping time CANNOT tell you how far away something is.    I don't deny that.

What it CAN tell you (and we can debate whether this is useful or not) is the MAXIMUM distance it could be from you.  Light cannot exceed 300,000,000 m/s no matter what.

So, yeah - in your case, it says "The server in the closet over there is AT MOST 35,000km away"...which is a true (but entirely USELESS) piece of information!   I could not agree more!

BUT if ping says (in effect) "The server in Tokyo is AT MOST 6,600km away" - and *both* of the FE maps that I've seen say that's it's much, MUCH further - then the ping time did actually, conclusively, prove something quite significant.   It actually proves that both maps are WRONG. (Which Tom doesn't deny of course).

Now, you're right - I could come along tomorrow and do the exact same test and be told that Tokyo is AT MOST as far away as the moon...and that doesn't help much.

But if the ping time EVER comes back with a usefully short time - then I've proven an upper limit on the distance in a manner that is beyond rational dispute.

This might allow us (with the right access to the right machines) to say (for example) the FE claim that Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile is no more than (I dunno) 10% further than Qantas airlines claim it is...which would be concrete proof that Qantas are not claiming flight distances that are wildly too Tom has been claiming.

My experiments with the Dallas/Tokyo and SiliconValley/Tokyo ping suggests that the shortest ping times do indeed match RET distances between those to place to within a useful percentage...enough to prove conclusively that the two FE maps are indeed CRAP.

The technique is valid for the narrowly stated claims that I make for it.

Your efforts to tarnish it by REPEATEDLY saying that I'm claiming accurate distances - when I'm ABSOLUTELY not - seems to indicate that you're either being deliberately and knowingly incorrect or you're not as knowledgeable about the simple laws of physics and the way ping packets travel as you seem to think you are.

Honestly, I don't care which it is.  Either way - I now know something useful that can be used in the future - even if you're not going to accept it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« on: September 18, 2017, 02:06:27 PM »
There are still a few problems here.

Yes the domain of the last hops are, but that doesn't mean the endpoint must be in Japan.  Even if the IP block seems to be in Japan, it can be announced anywhere they want.  A more telling point is that in the host name is a clear physical identifier of Dallas, and Ashburn right before it.  After seeing that it brings into question why a source in Silicon Valley is routed almost immediately to the other side of the country.

As I alluded to in the other convo going on about this, there is a relatively "easy" way to fix this - know for sure where the physical end points are beforehand instead of guessing it afterwards.  For example your company has an office in San Jose and in Tokyo with servers in each office.

Edit:  I admit I'm unsure if you originally said the source was Silicon Valley or Texas, but still the problems I mentioned and the fix are still accurate.  This ping stuff seems to be spread over like 5 threads, difficult to keep track of it all.

Sorry - I did the traceroute from my PC, here in central Texas - the original ping experiment was done from a server in Silicon Valley.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >