Recent Posts

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by gizmo910 on October 16, 2017, 09:11:26 PM »
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.

Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.
12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where do the rockets go?
« Last post by gizmo910 on October 16, 2017, 09:07:14 PM »
J-man the article you posted states the videos claims as "The film alleges that the crew never left low Earth orbit, but were able to fake images of a distant-looking globe by zooming in on a window of the spacecraft."
So if you want to accept that as proof, they were in the craft, in orbit, and the globe photos are genuine but not taken from the moon.
Did I miss anything?

you use quotes but that is not what was said or what was depicted. They could have been in a studio.

nowhere does that article mention them using a studio to fake the space station. It literally says:
Quote
The film alleges that the crew never left low Earth orbit, but were able to fake images of a distant-looking globe by zooming in on a window of the spacecraft.

The film suggests that if they were still in low Earth orbit, you would not be able to see the whole of our world through the window.

So, it claims the crew darkened out the inside of the spacecraft and filmed the circular window through which part of the Earth would have been visible.
13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 16, 2017, 09:01:26 PM »
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.
14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by gizmo910 on October 16, 2017, 08:59:52 PM »
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?
15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 16, 2017, 08:57:26 PM »
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though

How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?

Quote
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed

3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.
16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by xenotolerance on October 16, 2017, 08:45:52 PM »
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though

Or try this:

'The model you have provided is untested over long distances and makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven.'

Please provide photographs and a demonstration that 'land ascends to the horizon' from real life and not from sideways diagrams that do not resemble real observational Zetetic experience with a full itemized inventory of all equipment used, the air temperature and pressure that day, unbroken video from multiple angles of the demonstration that include the sun and horizon in the frame at all times, as well as forum verification with the date, a photo ID, and your forum handle in the frame all at one time.

when do you that you'll still be wrong, but at least you'll be consistent

And lordie this is rich:

Quote
Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of perspective which have never been observed.

homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed.
17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where do the rockets go?
« Last post by J-Man on October 16, 2017, 08:37:59 PM »
J-man the article you posted states the videos claims as "The film alleges that the crew never left low Earth orbit, but were able to fake images of a distant-looking globe by zooming in on a window of the spacecraft."
So if you want to accept that as proof, they were in the craft, in orbit, and the globe photos are genuine but not taken from the moon.
Did I miss anything?

you use quotes but that is not what was said or what was depicted. They could have been in a studio.
18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 16, 2017, 08:30:24 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

What you're saying is only true in FET...and indeed, we RE'ers are saying that the horizon cannot exist in a flat earth.   So you are "assuming the consequent".

HOWEVER:  The photons that make up the light from the elephant travel in a straight line towards your eye and hit the dime instead.  This happens because there is a straight line between elephant, dime and eye.  Hence you cannot see the elephant.

But the sun, the horizon and your eye DON'T lie in a straight line...so sunrises and sunsets don't work in FET.

This is PRECISELY why I keep asking you to fulfil your offer to explain how the photons are travelling.   Nothing else makes for a clear explanation of what you THINK is going on here.   The fact that you have been ducking this explanation for over a month now (and 16 days after saying that you WOULD answer it) suggests that you don't have an answer.

Here is a helpful diagram.



Photons travelling in a straight line would take the blue path and miss the tree that's on the horizon.
Photons that WOULD hit the tree would have to take the pink path - but then they aren't travelling in a straight line but cleverly steering themselves to make it look like the sun is behind the tree.  Sadly, this isn't what happens because (we all know) light travels in a straight line.

The physics in your scene are entirely wrong. You are using a model in which it is impossible for a horizon to exist. It is impossible for railroad tracks to touch a horizon in that model. Railroad tracks touch the horizon at a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.



At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.

The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality. Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.

Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.
19
Flat Earth General / Re: Chinese space station to crash soon "within months"
« Last post by J-Man on October 16, 2017, 08:25:41 PM »
Every once in awhile you have to drop some trash from a cargo plane at 40,000 feet to make it all seem real.

Bombs away, bay doors open captain, ok, push and jettison parts of fake station.
20
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by Rama Set on October 16, 2017, 08:09:17 PM »
Is Archaeology a fake science as well? How does an archaeologist conduct a controlled experiment on past cultures? They only observe and interpret.

By Tom's lights, only chemistry and physics (but not astrophysics) are sciences.