Recent Posts

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 04:14:41 AM »
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.

The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmosphere. A welder's mask would make as much difference as wearing sunglasses in a movie theater to block out the movie.

I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't)

Your math is just that -- math. Where in reality is there an example of perspective lines never touching each other for infinity?

You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.

Your model must reflect things which occur in reality, not the mind of an ancient person who believed that perspective lines would approach each other for infinity. Where is the evidence that would happen?

IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat.

No. You need to show that the math is based on SOMETHING in reality. You must demonstrate reason for us to believe that the nature of perspective lines act in the ways you describe.

"Prove me wrong" is a terrible debating strategy. You are claiming that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity, and that is your claim to demonstrate in some way.

So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance.

That geometry for perspective lines and long distances has never been demonstrated to be based on anything in reality. It is your duty to provide evidence for it.

If no evidence can be provided, why should we assume it to be true?
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: High tide(s)
« Last post by douglips on Today at 03:04:26 AM »
Tidal force depends on the inverse CUBE of the distance. The overall gravity force depends on the SQUARE OF THE DISTANCE. So no, the distance is not "more than made up for" by the large mass of the sun.
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by xenotolerance on Today at 02:12:03 AM »
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?

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.

Lands do not, have not ever, and never will "get up to the horizon." They do not "ascend to it," with or without perspective effects. Your diagrams are incorrect - if the sightline is straight out, the horizon will never intersect with it, even on an infinite plane. If you look at the horizon, you are looking slightly down. In other words, your question is bunk.

And your logic is backwards! Sure, he has to design his model of Earth to fit what is actually observed - but when this is done, you end up with a globe. Any flat Earth model is going to have fatal problems because the Earth is not flat. So if you want to design a flat Earth model that fits with reality, I hope you're prepared to move on from your premise.

And, by the way, there exists easily accessible proof that the Earth is a sphere. If you want to say otherwise, you have to prove that space travel is fake - not the other way around, where you presume the Earth is flat therefore space travel must be faked.

so yeah, all of this junk about perspective is missing the point anyway. get busy proving your conspiracy theory, or get busy shutting the fuck up

Hi Gizmo910, it's generally considered low-content posting to post a link divorced of any content. FYI.
That's no bubble...
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« Last post by junker on Today at 01:07:57 AM »
Go pats junker owes me. 500 dollars

You should have taken the bet.
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Revel on Today at 01:01:29 AM »
Vanishing points only exist for truly parallel lines that seem to converge.
Otherwise, vanishing points only exist for an object becoming increasingly smaller.

Tom, are you sure you're using either of these definitions of a vanishing point the way you should be? Or is Google, the infamous mainstream search engine, wrong?

The line of sight and the ground have to at least seem to converge to reach a horizon, so that your precious vanishing point (which is really a line, the horizon, not the sun) appears before the human eye.
The sun can't count as the vanishing point. We see the sun. It hasn't disappeared as it has set. Plus, the ground and our line of sight have to be truly, but not seemingly, parallel for your definition to be correct. Well, there exists a perspective view but no vanishing point to compare. Think about it, Tom.

The sun, on the other note, is not getting noticeably farther either. So I'm sure that this definition of a vanishing point (object) is being used...
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« Last post by Sean on October 16, 2017, 11:48:18 PM »
Go pats junker owes me. 500 dollars
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Rama Set on October 16, 2017, 11:43:39 PM »
Ah, didn't see that, thanks.  I could apply but they might not like the airfare. XD
Do it! If you win and they question the airfare, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.
But then I'd go to Texas.  Do I really want to go to Texas?

Everyone I've ever met from Texas seems nice, racist.
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

And this from the man who claims garlic cures cancer, where's your proof there Tom? One article? Or the man who believes the sun is 3,000 miles above us and yet still enables the sun sets/rises we observe to occur based on perspective "of the sun"?! You argue against the entire field of astronomy and their collective findings based on collaborative research using top of the range equipment with this? I asked you about seeing different constellations from different regions on earth, you claim the stars are closer than we are led to believe and direct me to " learn more flat earth" as an offer NOTHING anywhere close to the rational, impartial deductions of astronomy. You ignore it because you can not comprehend it. What scientific experiment would you suggest they carry out to add further proof too the mutually supporting raft of evidence astronomy provides! Stephen Hawkins V Tom Bishop.........good luck