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 - hexagon

Pages: < Back  1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9  Next >
Hm, the explanation of lenses in EnaG only shows a complete lack of knowledge how a lens works, how optics works and so on... Maybe someone should do some research and read a standard book like Born/Wolf "Principle of Optics"...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 18, 2018, 08:50:53 AM »

Yes you are correct, Alcohol will float on top of water. But to do so needs carefully pouring on top of the water, and to avoid stirring or mixing.

Vodka is not pure alchol, it is already diluted to about 40% with water, so is already in suspension. Mixing of any kind will keep the alcohol in suspension.

Vodka is soluble with water, and will not “settle out” nice try tom, but clutching at straws i am afraid!

I would take something like ethanol or isopropanol. Should not be too expansive.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 18, 2018, 07:59:57 AM »
The same sort of imprecision is seen:

Try it again, but instead of drawing a straight line relative to the picture orientation (same mistake you made expecting my photos to be centered), see if you can draw a straight line through the levels, being consistent as to where you cross the meniscus.

You should be able to. I can. That's level. Not the way the picture is framed. That's the point of the water leveling.

If you think a picture is always framed level, anyone can fabricate that and convince you you're seeing level. The point of the water is that you can trust it. You don't have to trust the picture-taker.

Go ahead. Retry drawing that line, but ignore the orientation/framing of the picture.

The capillary pressure is a function of the diameter of the tubes. Therefor in communicating tubes of different diameter the water level is different. But it is only the diameter at the water level which is relevant, not the shape and therefor not the overall volume of the tubes. But you have to be a bit careful how you fill the tubes to observe the real equilibrium state.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 18, 2018, 07:50:30 AM »
Vodka floats on water.
That's the kind of input I can appreciate.
I didn't know that. I added the alcohol to see if it would minimize the meniscus. But maybe it didn't. Maybe it separated and it's floating to the top of one vertical tube but not the other, and maybe the density difference is throwing off the measurement.

I can calibrate it if you think so. I plugged the tubes when done and I haven't stirred up the fluid since the experiment. If I show you the fluid levels are unaffected by the water/alcohol mixture, will you be satisfied? It is a good point, and something I hadn't considered.

Either you take pure alcohol, a soap solution or just a tiny drop of oil on top of each water column. All this has a lower surface tension and therefor a less pronounced meniscus.

I only thought it is easier to go for the origin of all this. If the premise is already wrong, it is self evident that any conclusions drawn from it are also wrong.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« on: May 18, 2018, 07:11:00 AM »
There's no video about anything that happened in the 19th century, I suppose. Therefor one report is as good as any other.

In principle you only have to go for his description in Chapter XIV. There he defines the angle of about 1° under which perspective lines go away from the vanishing point. If you read how he derives this conclusion, it is more than obvious, that mixes this up with the effect of optical resolution. Basically he gives perfect description, how optical resolution effects the perception of far away objects and how this changes if you use a tool like a telescope.

The other interesting point is, when he correctly describes what happens if you look through a long tunnel. He says, that the exists of the tunnel shrink to points and look like distance stars. That's a very nice description of the isotropic effect of perspective. But besides this tunnel observation, he restricts the effect perspective to the vertical plane. E.g. ships only shrink in the vertical direction, but not in the horizontal direction. The same for the sun. This is inconsistent with his own descriptions, examples and explanations.

Interestingly, the flat-earth believes go beyond this up to now. They use horizontal perspective only for things like railway tracks or streets. But never for buildings, mountains, ships, etc. far away at the horizon. Same still for the sun (while stars shrink inconsequentially isotropic to points). Most obviously this error is made in the typical "look a long a wall" example. From the point of perspective this is a mixture of horizontal and vertical effects of perspective. But they use it only as example for the vertical effect. It's really hard to follow way of thinking.         

Science & Alternative Science / Re: This Is How Perspective Works
« on: May 17, 2018, 11:52:02 AM »
The definition is a problem, because in principle you are free in how you define something. Also think about, that this definition of parallel lines is only valid in Euclidean space. If you go to hyperbolic spaces or things like Riemann space and the 4-dimensional space of the general relativity, you have no straight lines anymore, just shortest connections between two points in space. Or think of the surface of a sphere. The "straight lines" are all part of great circles, and the great circles meet always twice on a sphere.   

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« on: May 17, 2018, 10:21:11 AM »
According to the wikipedia article this was indeed used for educational purposes, but I go along with their remark, that this is no longer needed, because nowadays we have direct proof due to pictures from space.

...and, for those who question the pictures, and call them "CGI", we have the data and observations.

In the thread about the horizon at eye-level experiment you see how far you go with data and observations. They don't care, they will only discuss about irrelevant details about the execution of your experiment. Any new experiment is as good as an old one. 

Flat Earth Theory / Neutrinos
« on: May 17, 2018, 09:26:02 AM »
Yesterday I joined a very nice colloquiums talk about new results and methods about the detection of high energy neutrinos. That motivated me to asked for the flat-earth believers opinion about neutrinos. Especially the question, how could it be that we can observe neutrinos approaching the detectors from below, through the earth. In the framework of the standard model this is no question, cause the cross section of neutrinos with the earth is extremely low and therefor they can easily travel through the earth. But if the earth is flat and neutrinos are known for traveling in really straight lines, how can they approach the detector from below, if they originate in the sun, other stars, super novas, etc... and all this is always above a flat earth?

If anyone is not so familiar with neutrinos, here is a nice, quite recent publication about neutrinos traveling through the earth:

It's data taken with the IceCube detector which is located next to the south pole (ups!). If you ask for proof or validity of the conclusions, all original data are linked at the end of that article, so everyone invited to analyse them by himself. 

If you think IceCube is fake, here is the link to the application form for visiting IceCube:

Go there, and check out yourself what's going on there.

And what was the outcome of this audits regarding dollars? How many billions of dollars where hidden somewhere? As far as I understand, they criticized the procedures, but no one present any numbers or gave indications that billions of dollars where redirected in the pockets of someone.

Anyway, physicists are no businessmen. Our financial guys also always went crazy how we manage our financial issues. NASA is just a bit bigger as a university or a standard institute, more money is involved, so people have a closer look and are more critical.   

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« on: May 17, 2018, 08:40:35 AM »
According to the wikipedia article this was indeed used for educational purposes, but I go along with their remark, that this is no longer needed, because nowadays we have direct proof due to pictures from space.

That's the most confusing thing for me anyway, that the whole discussion is lead by the flat-earth believers as we would still be in England in the middle of the 19th century. Somehow they have not realized, that time has proceed and knowledge and understanding has vastly evolved since then. 

I'm not questioning that you should repeat key experiments from the past. But that's something for students to get a deeper understanding as just by reading books. It's not that physics students do lab courses to solve open questions...

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« on: May 17, 2018, 07:59:57 AM »
I don't get it why this should be repeated. It was already repeated. Just check the wikipedia article about it and go for the references within there, e.g. this one:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 16, 2018, 02:10:53 PM »
Regarding possible errors. You have to make sure that the distance between the aligned water levels compared to the horizon is significantly larger than the distance between the aligned water levels and the center of the picture. Than everything is fine. All other arguments regarding errors and alignment you can just ignore. It's just distraction from the real question.   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 16, 2018, 10:43:31 AM »
If the center of the picture, which should be identical to the center of the optical system of the camera is really already below the horizon in the picture, the whole thing is useless. Don't make it so easy form them, you can do better...

So you would be happy if the experimenter mounted the camera on a frame attached to the cage, with an adjustment bracket, and took setup shots, counting the pixels every time, until a perfect centre was achieved?

Either you do the experiment as perfect as possible or you don't do it at all. As it is now, you don't even reach the point to discuss about the result, you are stuck into discussion on the realization of the experiment.

Personally I wouldn't do the experiment at all, because as I explained above, the outcome is obvious. And even if you get in the end a picture where no one can complain about the setup and the execution of the experiment, they will kill it with the simple question "how do you know that Euclidean geometry works over long distances?".

It's a useless discussion. Go and read EnaG and try to understand it. Then you will find so many obvious loopholes in the whole description that are really hard to explain.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 16, 2018, 08:44:19 AM »
If the center of the picture, which should be identical to the center of the optical system of the camera is really already below the horizon in the picture, the whole thing is useless. Don't make it so easy form them, you can do better...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 16, 2018, 07:08:29 AM »
I keep rereading the  sections “why the ship’s hull disappears before the masthead” and “perspectives at sea” and though it sounds like he’s describing perspective as I understand it, he’s applying it in a way that is nonsensical to me. I get his argument about equidistant lines, but I can’t for the life of me deduce how he’s demarcing the horizon.

Each example, the surface appears to slope up to eye level, but then run parallel to (or coincident upon)the eyeline.

But how is that point figured? What’s happening here?

What determines the point at which the ground stops its apparent upward slope? Where does that H point that marks the horizon occur? Is dependent and how far above you the object lost to the horizon is? In other words, there is no horizon point. It’s a variable. The tops of tree are lost to the “horizon” further away than the trunks are?

What is determining where the red line appears to stop sloping upward and the blue line is level?

Is H variable, even if I’m not changing my height over the ground?

The key for understanding this idea of perspective is the introduction to the section "PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA". There he describes some observations he made.  Basically he observed that far away people seem to melt with the street. This effect is obviously the consequence of the limited optical resolution of our eyes. But for him this is the key to understand perspective. The limiting angle of optical resolution is something like 1°, but for him this is the angle of perspective lines relative to ground going away from the vanishing point.

Regarding any explanation about the vanishing point, this point is always at eye level. The consequence of this is, that point most far away to be observed is always at eye-level (anything beyond the vanishing point is to small to be visible). Within in this framework this is logical consequence, there is no other possibility. And cause the angle is fixed, the the distance to the vanishing point is not fixed. It moves away with your elevation, it comes closer if you go down.

Therefor, if you are at the sea, the point most far away is the horizon. Therefor the horizon is always at eye-level. There is no other option within this model.

Of course, all this is based on misunderstandings of optics, oversimplified drawings and so on. The biggest drawback is, that he explains everything only in a vertical plane. But perspective works in all directions, it is isotropic. Would you apply his model also to the horizontal plane, everything would look like if we would live in a tunnel. Obviously he never thought about all the consequences of his model. It is also not quite clear why the sun is visible anyway in England, because it is always further away than the horizon. OK, it is bigger and higher in the sky, but I guess that if you would put numbers into his model, you would find lots of contradictions regarding height, size and distance.

But anyway, this what comes closest to a theory in the whole book and is the most central part of all his "experiments", observations and explanations. And therefor this obsession of the flat-earth believers with this "horizon at eye-level" claim. If this fails, most of the other stuff will also fail. It's the house of cards everything is build upon. So they will never accept anything, that is in contradiction to this claim. 


Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 15, 2018, 04:14:07 PM »
In terms of the generally accepted view on perspective, it is obvious that the horizon is always below eye-level. Your eye is above ground, so the ground (if it is flat as the sea) is always below eye-level. The horizon is the line where the sky apparently meets the ground, therefor also the horizon is always below eye-level.

There are two prerequisite in this argumentation, first the horizon is at finite distance, second you are looking straight, parallel to the tangent of the earth at your position. The only possibility for the horizon to meet eye-level would be, if the distance to the horizon would be at infinite distance.

Notice that I have not assumed a globe earth. A globe earth only enhances this effect due to the dip towards the horizon line which compensates partly for the apparent perspective uplift of the horizon line. It would be the same on a finite plate under a spherical sky, but, depending on the size, the horizon would maybe a bit closer to eye-level, but still always below.

That's a very obvious consequence of how perspective works. Does't need any experimental proof.   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 15, 2018, 03:04:56 PM »
Well, until a flat earth proponent steps forward and objects to this method on the grounds you say he or she could, I'm proceeding as if it's acceptable; because I can't play devil's advocate for them for an explanation that makes no sense to me.

I've repeatedly put the invitation out to critique this method, and the best (only one, really) offered so far is Tom Bishop's question about how I know I'm sighting the "true" horizon, to which I respond, how does a flat earther know (such as Samuel Rowbotham)? And instead of critiquing the method, he's critiqued its execution.

So, if there's a fundamental disparity between my understanding of how perspective lines should positively complement a level sighting survey and what the flat earth explanation for why the horizon must always be at eye-level that renders this wire cube apparatus pointless, I wish someone would tell me, and try to help me understand why.

If you don't understand their view on perspective and how they construct perspective lines read Chapter XIV of EnaG. As you will see (and it's even written there) that doesn't goes along with the usual way perspective works. If you want to understand why a flat-earth believer doesn't care about this contradiction, search the forum for "Euclidean geometry".

Yes, your experiment is very nice, but it only demonstrates what is obvious anyway and known to anyone who deals with perspective, but still will not convince any flat-earth believer, because they take EnaG for granted and solve any contradiction by questioning the universal validity of Euclidean geometry, which means continuous linearity. Prove that, and they will have some trouble to maintain their opinion on perspective. Everything else is a waste of time and effort.   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 15, 2018, 01:16:16 PM »
What you prove is, that lines you draw along parallel lines in a picture meet in one point and this point is always above the line where the sky apparently meets the see if the optical axis of your camera is parallel to the tangent to the earth surface at the position of the camera. That's a consequence of optical imaging of 3D surrounding onto a 2D plane. And the meeting point is the vanishing point according the usual definition of perspective.

Now look into EnaG and how the vanishing point and everything related to this is defined there. It is very different. And it leads to some contradictions to your observations. But this contradiction vanishes if you no longer assume that there is a linear relation between that what is far away and nearby you. Somewhere in between everything is changing nonlinear in such away that the contradiction is solved. That doesn't sound quite rational, but how do you really know that it is not the case?

So prove the linearity and your experiment gets validity.

But what would be a valid proof? I don't know. Regarding the real position of the sun it is quite easy. You just go straight until you approach the sun. But how do you prove that you are really going straight? How do you convince someone who only believes it what he called a direct proof? It's not an easy task...     

Pages: < Back  1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9  Next >