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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of proof
« on: Today at 04:25:06 AM »
As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: Today at 04:02:59 AM »
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.

Thank you Tom - you just helped to disprove the flat earth!

In a FLAT earth - you're right, the peak of a mountain cannot ever be on the horizon...and my diagram elegantly demonstrates that.

In a ROUND earth - my diagram has to have a curved "ground" - and in that situation, the top of a mountain can indeed be on the horizon (or below it).

I do not claim my diagram proves that the earth is flat...to the contrary, it disproves it...which does not make it "wrong" - it makes it "right".

If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.

You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.

Quote from: 3DGeek
Your claim that "the ground rises to the horizon" is an oft-stated thing in FET - but it's not true.   If you fly a military fighter airplane with a heads-up-display, you see that the "artificial horizon" is considerably higher than the actual horizon at high altitudes - yet perfectly aligned with it at sea level.

The higher you go the farther the horizon would be, but unfortunately you do not listen very well. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. At extreme altitudes, such as from a military fighter jet in your example, you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere.  The true "horizon" at very high altitudes is farther than what you see.

You can tell that this is happening because at high altitudes where the artificial horizon on a plane's instrumentation is above the observable horizon, the horizon is no longer sharp or defined, and is seen as a gradual gradient. It should be no surprise, then, under such conditions basically absent of a horizon that the artificial horizon would be above the level of the land.

3
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap.

Tom you demonstrate an uncanny lack on knowledge of human physiology here. As you are talking hypothetically I will answer as such:

Imagine that 5g of garlic will kill 1000 cancer cells, logic follows that if I have 10,000 cancer cells I need only eat 50g of garlic and boom! Cancer gone.

The problem with this hypothesis is that the human digestive and metabolic system is not 100% efficient; hence why circa 24 hours after eating sweetcorn the husks can clearly be seen in one's faecal output. If I ate 50g of garlic not all of it would be digested, even if I ate 5,000g I may never reach the magic 50g I required. Think of it as a ceiling; the maximum amount of any given substance that the body can absorb.

The amount of garlic needed to cure the cancer can simply fall above the amount the body can digest.

There are other variables involved in terms of things such as stomach absorption, garlic quality, etc., but these are bad arguments which do not really show any fallacy with the statement.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:12:55 PM »
Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change?

Once again; perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, which is the determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Quote
Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.

Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to stick out of the horizon line. It is impossible for the mountain to even get to the horizon line.

This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:04:21 PM »
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?

I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.

The diagram you posted seems to be a Round Earth model explanation for a horizon which we are not talking about.

The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.

The ground does rise to the horizon, overhead bodies like planes do descend to the horizon, and it is possible for the tops of mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 12:49:07 PM »
There is nothing wrong with the side view!

Yes, there is something wrong. Under that side view model things would infinitely approach the horizon, but never touch it. The fact that a distant mountain can get above the level of the horizon line shows that the model is inaccurate in its assumptions and representations of reality.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 12:47:11 PM »
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.

The horizon is not represented in that side view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.

However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 05:33:08 AM »
The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world.

Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.

Quote
Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.

Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Perspective is not merely an "art concept". The horizon is seen in the real world; it's not purely artistic.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM »
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.

Mathematics only reflects the model it is trying to describe. If the model is wrong, the math is wrong.

In order for 2 + 2 to equal 4, certain assumptions about the underlying model must be true. In some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 04:19:30 AM »
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.

Who proved false the observation that high flying planes that fly over you move more consistently across the sky than very low planes that fly over you?

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 03:26:44 AM »
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:

Quote
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 hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".

Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.

Therefore, if the sun is sufficiently far away to where the vertical planks are merged together, the distance the sun has to travel between states becomes constant. The horizontal dividers of different perceived lengths between the vertical planks that hold them together no longer exist.

The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance  (what is basically seen in the above picture).

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 02:46:31 AM »
That model isn't about the horizon. The horizon is an illusion of the eye. The model shows where the sun actually is. 20 degrees above the horizontal. Which means you need to figure out how perspective can not only account for that, but why it affects everything else too. Perspective is an artist tool, as is the vanishing point. Neither exist as physical realities.

So once again. Where is your proof/evidence that this all works the way you say it should and has to in order for your sun to set? Remember, the sun/moon can't be pointed to for your evidence here.

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 02:26:29 AM »
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?

I don't have that equation. The fact that the horizon exists and that model says that the horizon does not exist is a simple enough demonstration that the model is inaccurate to reality.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 02:20:24 AM »
Quote
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!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.

At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.

The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.

Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:36:09 AM »
Quote
He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".

But that's not true...as 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?

The drawing is not taking visual perspective into account. For instance, the entire concept of a Vanishing Point does not exist in that model. The model says that perspective lines can never meet. However, the Vanishing Point does exist; illustrating that this model is clearly lacking in several aspects of perspective and is not an accurate representation.

Quote
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!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: September 21, 2017, 05:16:38 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.
No - you're not answering what I asked.  Where ACTUALLY is the sun?  The physical location.  Not "where does it appear to be?"   Where is it actually positioned?

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

At sunset 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.
That would be true if the sun literally was at the horizon - but we know it isn't because it's not setting fire to the trees.  I agree that it APPEARS to be at the horizon.   But we're not saying that it's literally there because it can't be in two places at once.   It's evidently 3,000 miles above some distant place where it's noontime.

If it can't be in two places at once - then it's PHYSICALLY in one place - but it APPEARS to be in different places for different observers...surely that's what you mean here - right?

The idea that perspective is changing the orientation of bodies around you is not synonymous with the change of position of the bodies.

Google definitions:

orientation - the determination of the relative position of something or someone
position - a place where someone or something is located or has been put

Perspective changes orientation; which is your determination of relative position, not the position of a body. I've told you several times that it the orientation that is changed.  Could you please look up simple definitions if you come across a word that is beyond you?

Probably a breach of etiquette to re quote from much earlier in the thread, but I have to comment on this.

Quote
Two parallel perspective lines traveling into the distance will appear to be angled towards each other and approach each other if you were to stand in-between them. You are saying that these perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never meet, when this defies logic. How can two lines angled at each other never meet?

I see "perspective" being used here as a catch-all magic bullet of explanations. Perspective is how you see something, not how it exists.

Read the quote above and picture yourself standing between two long straight railroad tracks. It is really the most simple example possible. Do you see two lines angling towards each other? Yes. Do you see two angles converging? Yes. If the track is long enough and empty, do they appear to converge at a far off point? Yes. That is your perspective. Do they actually ever meet? Of course not. That would make it rather hard on the trains that use them.

Now walk a few dozen feet perpendicular to the tracks, turn and look back at them. Are they still angled towards each other? No. Did the tracks change or move? No, your perspective changed, reality did not.

So since perspective doesn't define the interactions of these things, there are certainly not a bunching of photons around a "vanishing point."

I have never claimed that the position of the rail road tracks touch. It is the orientation that touches - your determination of relative position. I have said that it is the orientation numerous times now. Learn to definition.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: September 20, 2017, 08:50:08 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?

Glad you brought that up. I was incomplete in my comment. The eye's lens plays a big role in perspective. It makes things that are further away appear smaller.
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-perspective-in-nature
The brain's role is easy to suss out, as well. That giant looking moon or Sun on the horizon is purely a function of your brain "thinking" things on the horizon are closer than things overhead.

Cameras which do not have lenses also experience perspective. How do you explain that?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« 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?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« 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.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: September 20, 2017, 05:48:48 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?

At sunset 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133  Next >