Recent Posts

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Soliloquies
« Last post by Jura-Glenlivet on September 20, 2017, 08:34:23 PM »
Religion is a big thing here at the moment, from the gentle hippyish apocalyptical meanderings of Dither to the "End of days" ravings of Dr Boolittle. We have signs, and signs of signs, of things coming to a head, vis-à-vis our creator un-creating everything, weighing our souls against a feather (or some other such nonsense), and casting all into eternal damnation. All that is, apart from the Boo's, who get to live in perpetual smugness with each other (just one of the many reasons I'm not rushing to repent).

This Christianity isn't the one I know from the leafy lanes and quiet shires of childhood.

As a kid Christianity was (it seemed to me), just there to explain the existence of all the churches, to give the weird guy in the long black clothes a job to do and to provide simple stop-gap answers to difficult questions until you grew up and did science (or became another weird guy). It was the singing of "all things bright and beautiful", harvest festivals and the peal of bells on a Sunday.

However, the doom-laden ending does bear a resemblance to what we were interested in, the Norse/Germanic/Celtic religions, the ones that gave us most of our day names and (we were told) the roots of Christmas (Yule), Easter (Eostre) and Halloween (Samhain). Cool gods with hammers and spears, ravens, drinking, giants, dwarves, serpents that wrapped the world, wolves that ate the sun and moon and Ragnarök.

Ragnarök, is the "end of days" turbo-charged via George Martin and Sam Peckinpah. All the gods so terribly rendered by Hollywood are killed, Thor poisoned by the Midgard serpent (seriously big snake), staggers 9 steps after killing it and succumbs, Odin swallowed whole by the Fenrir Wolf, but avenged by his son, Vidar. Loki, (incidentally the father of the serpent, the wolf and Odin's horse) is killed by, and kills Heimdall. Hel (the place) is opened by Hel (the goddess of death, another child of Loki) and generally, shit goes south. The Norse gods were massively fatalistic, they of all the pantheons were aware of their fate (although if Satan hasn't gotten hold of a copy of revelations by now and learned his fate, I would be surprised), but they did very little to cheat it, they had Fenrir tied up with the loss of Tyr's hand as payment, but didn't butcher it?  At the end, everything is consumed bar a few children of the gods and two humans who get on with re-populating. Much more fun.

Modern Christianity it seems, having absorbed the Holy days may have stolen the ending too, although the Edda's weren't written down until the 13th century, there are carving stones and such from at least as far back as the 1st depicting the legends, and the Saga's they came from, were old when they passed into Britain. Stolen not in the sense that it wasn't already there in revelations but in the pessimistic world view that seems to infuse latter day Christians.

As for the signs? Well, look up Skinner's box and superstition, look up apophenia or confirmation bias.

Anyway we grew up and left all that behind with the tooth fairy*, didn't we?


*(an old Norse superstition of paying children for their spare teeth to make lucky necklaces for battle, although I might of made that up)
22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Last post by zp0okii on September 20, 2017, 08:23:47 PM »
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?

No, but they do have resolutions.

I am so tired of seeing FET push the law of perspectives when it has been so thoroughly (and easily) debunked. Will post this link for the millionth time leading to the OG thread debunking this "law".

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0

And in video form:

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Last post by Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 08:21:57 PM »
Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?
24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Last post by StinkyOne on September 20, 2017, 07:59:46 PM »
I don't think you'll ever be able to get him to agree on this issue. Some folks understand that the type of perspective Tom is talking about here is created in the brain and, from what I can gather, Tom thinks it is an actual physical change in the world. (even though he hasn't come out and said that, it is exactly what he is implying) He is taking ideas like a vanishing point and creating physical constructs around them that can't possibly exist.

Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.
25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Last post by Curious Squirrel on September 20, 2017, 07:27:21 PM »
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

Quote
1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?

Beneath the sun an observer sees that the sun is above overhead and the light rays are traveling downwards. At sunset the observer sees that the sun is at the horizon; placed there by perspective. The light rays are coming in at 90 degrees from zenith. Perspective has oriented the sun to be in that location.

Quote
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

The photons travel from the horizon to your eye, which is a horizontal path. The cause is a result of how perspective orients itself around you.
1) How? Is the sun physically there? Where is your evidence this will happen the way you describe? (Reminder, the sun and moon don't count)

2) How do the photons get from being 20 degrees above the horizon, to coming from the horizon? You still haven't answered this basic math principle, instead claiming perspective somehow makes the sun do things that aren't mathematically possible. How does perspective change the direction light come from, and how does it come in at that angle for literally everything?

Your "basic math principal" is based on a model which does not accurately account for perspective and does not actually happen except in your erroneous interpretation of the situation.

Perspective works two ways. If you see the sun at the horizon, the sun also sees you at the horizon, and that is where the rays of light will follow -- horizontally to the horizon. Perspective never "changes the direction" of the light. The observer was always at the horizon for the sun and so that is where the light rays will travel.

Here we go 3D. Tom believes perspective is a fundamental law of nature/the world. :/
26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Last post by Tom Bishop on September 20, 2017, 07:10:48 PM »
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer. The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

Quote
1) At sunset where I am standing - which is noon in some other place on the Earth - where (physically) is the actual orb of the sun with respect to the Earth itself?

Beneath the sun an observer sees that the sun is above overhead and the light rays are traveling downwards. At sunset the observer sees that the sun is at the horizon; placed there by perspective. The light rays are coming in at 90 degrees from zenith. Perspective has oriented the sun to be in that location.

Quote
2) At that moment in time, what path do the photons take to get from that physical location into my eyeball?

The photons travel from the horizon to your eye, which is a horizontal path. The cause is a result of how perspective orients itself around you.
1) How? Is the sun physically there? Where is your evidence this will happen the way you describe? (Reminder, the sun and moon don't count)

2) How do the photons get from being 20 degrees above the horizon, to coming from the horizon? You still haven't answered this basic math principle, instead claiming perspective somehow makes the sun do things that aren't mathematically possible. How does perspective change the direction light come from, and how does it come in at that angle for literally everything?

Your "basic math principal" is based on a model which does not accurately account for perspective and does not actually happen except in your erroneous interpretation of the situation.

Perspective works two ways. If you see the sun at the horizon, the sun also sees you at the horizon, and that is where the rays of light will follow -- horizontally to the horizon. Perspective never "changes the direction" of the light. The observer was always at the horizon for the sun and so that is where the light rays will travel.
27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: No Religion= Peace
« Last post by Boodidlie on September 20, 2017, 06:56:09 PM »
.................. come to me
 
Jesus' personal invitation .. part 1 of 2 .. Recorded Oct 04 1981

Matthew 11:25 .. at that time .. Jesus said .. I praise you .. father .. Lord of heaven and earth ..
............. that you have hidden these things from the "wise and intelligent" and have revealed them to infants
11:26 .. yes .. father .. for this way was well-pleasing in your sight

Jesus' personal invitation .. part 2 of 2 .. Recorded Oct 04 1981

11:27 .. all things have been handed over to me by my father ..  and no one knows the son except the father ..
............. nor does anyone know the father except the son .. and anyone to whom the son wills to reveal him
11:28 .. come to me .. all who are weary and heavy-laden .. and I will give you rest
11:29 .. take my yoke upon you and learn from me .. for I am gentle and humble in heart .. and you will find rest for your souls
11:30 .. for my yoke is easy .. and my burden is light
28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Viewing angle to sun at sunrise, sunset
« Last post by 3DGeek on September 20, 2017, 06:54:57 PM »


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.

A simple experiment. RE math/timeanddate.com pointed to a sunset at 275 degrees. On the rail, the compass showed 275. Off the rail, the compass showed 275.

The FE formula presented to me here predicted a sunset 51 degrees away from that. But sure, I set my compass on the wrong thing, cause maybe there was metal there. That's what's wrong. If that's what you want to focus on, go ahead. I really don't care. Maybe next year I'll wade out into the ocean with my compass.

Look - don't get me wrong - I'm an avid RE'er - I *know* what results you should get.

All I'm saying is that if your evidence is not impeccable - the local wolves will tear it to shreds.
29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Last post by 3DGeek on September 20, 2017, 06:40:13 PM »
Seems that a lot of these threads are bumping up against the issue of "perspective". Flat-earthers seem to think that it's a magical force that makes all the things they wish weren't true disappear. Perhaps we should start another thread where we can try to define this concept together? Here's the dictionary definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perspective notice, no mention of mysterious forces here..

Tom appears to want to discuss it on this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785.0 ...which is fine because that's where I started to debate it.   Tom also likes to post a video that "explains" it.  I've debunked that in this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.0

Quote
One obvious flaw with the FE argument is that they seem to think that perspective causes parallel lines to actually touch or maybe even cross, whereas this is not at all what happens. There is no evidence of this happening, and common sense & logic tell us that this is impossible.

Well, the problem is deeper than that.

In my view - perspective isn't a "thing" in it's own right.  It's an "emergent property".   Kinda like a "traffic jam" is only a property of the motions of cars.

I can easily reproduce the effects of normal perspective (why things look smaller in the distance, etc) with a simple pinhole camera analogy - and using only the fact that light travels in straight lines and the law of similar triangles.

This produces an equation that is used throughout computer graphics, movie making, lens design, etc.

But Tom (NOT all RE'ers) seems to think that perspective is a fundamental property of light.   In the video he references (again, see my debunking here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.0 ) the FE'ers are making a simple error:  They are using the "emergent property" of perspective and ADDING ON a second layer of perspective!   This double-counting is the root cause of their misunderstanding.

The video (and my debunking thereof) makes this error crystal clear - and when I correct the error, lo and behold, FE sunsets don't work anymore.

I actually have more respect for the "Electromagnetic accelerator" concept that was Tom's old idea for how FE sunsets happen.  It's a lot harder to disprove...but he says that he now disfavors it.

Honestly, in his position, I'd back up and go with it because it's a lot easier to believe.

Quote
In another thread, I think Tom was getting close to saying that perspective somehow changes reality (which it so obviously doesn't, it only affects the viewer's perception of reality). Perhaps we need to start with the concept of asymptote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote -- In essence, while the parallel lines do seem to converge at a distance, they never actually meet, and the certainly do not cross. By the way, as an aside, this explains the whole "light spreading through the clouds" phenomenon, that flerfers like to use as supposed "proof" that the sun is way closer than science tell us it is. [sarcasm] After all, why do we need observations, measurements, logic, and reasoning, when it just looks like it's closer? [/sarcasm]
30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Last post by 3DGeek on September 20, 2017, 06:12:08 PM »
At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer.
Nobody denies that - we all see it happen with our own eyes every day.

I *REALLY* do want to understand what you're trying to convey - and it's not happening.

OK - let's forget all of my diagrams - let's just use words and start with the simplest question of all.  The scenario is thus:

STEP 1: A photon (a small packet of light) undeniably leaves the Sun.   Which FET says is around 3,000 miles above the ground...someplace...I don't even care where that is for now.

STEP 2: It travels rapidly to some other part of the world where there is currently a sunset happening...undeniably.

STEP 3: Finally, undeniably the photon smacks into either a building, a tree or rock or...whatever.

It seems that none of these three things can be denied...right?   If you DO wish to deny one of them, please tell us  which one is incorrect and we can discuss that point until I understand what you're trying to explain to me.

So all I'm asking is for someone to tell me the route the photon took from point A (the Sun) to point B (it's ultimate destination).

That's it!

If the photon travels in a straight line between point A and point B - that's good, we agree.   But if perspective is bending the path of the photon - bouncing the light off of the stratosphere, folding the light beam - tying the light into pretzels - that's fine - just tell me the path the photon traveled along to get from the sun to the point where it lights something up.  If you truly don't know - then that's OK too - just tell us.

Quote
The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.

I dispute that - but perhaps there is some confusion of language or something.  Let's set that aside and pretend for now that I agree with you.   But at least answer the question above so we know we're talking about the same things here.

Quote
The phenomenon of perspective squishes everything to the horizon; and trying to represent it on a small scene a few inches across is invalid without artificially doing things like ascending the lands and creating a vanishing point in order to give a proper depiction of perspective.
Again, I dispute that - but again, let us assume for now that you're right so you can cleanly and clearly answer the question above without further distractions.