Re: Some perspective on perspective
« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2016, 08:04:47 PM »
The laser beam divergence... I have no idea how it is relevant. Perhaps you can explain to us how it would cause the sun to appear below the horizon?

I'm guessing he's inferring that the light diverges to a point where the sun appears the same size near sunset as it does at midday. Then maybe it's light scattering and divergence that eventually makes the sun invisible through the atmosphere.

Re: Some perspective on perspective
« Reply #61 on: May 06, 2016, 08:17:28 PM »
The laser beam divergence... I have no idea how it is relevant. Perhaps you can explain to us how it would cause the sun to appear below the horizon?

I'm guessing he's inferring that the light diverges to a point where the sun appears the same size near sunset as it does at midday. Then maybe it's light scattering and divergence that eventually makes the sun invisible through the atmosphere.

That's what I was guessing too. Unfortunately for him, light divergence/scattering off the atmosphere wouldn't change the apparent location or size of the sun. All it would do is cause the sun to be dimmer and add some glare around it. It's pretty easy to filter out the glare to reveal the exact edge of the sun.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8252
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Some perspective on perspective
« Reply #62 on: May 06, 2016, 08:43:02 PM »
Both of those phenomena are well understood, and would not cause the sun to appear below the horizon when it is actually 20 degrees above the horizon.

The iceberg mirage is caused by refraction. It is heavily dependent on air and surface temperature. It varies wildly. Sunsets happen every single day, everywhere, regardless of the weather. So no, this is not a possibility.

The laser beam divergence... I have no idea how it is relevant. Perhaps you can explain to us how it would cause the sun to appear below the horizon?

You asked for examples for why we should believe that things might be different when things are viewed by afar. I've satisfied this query. Now how about a real world example to show that things are how they should be under your theory?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Some perspective on perspective
« Reply #63 on: May 06, 2016, 09:02:39 PM »
Tom Bishop:
Quote
Show us a real world example of how objects at that sort of distance appear and behave.
Quote
So yes, we will need some kind of real evidence that things work as you say they work, not a diagram.

This is like saying we don’t know what would happen to a 15 kg cannonball dropped from an aircraft at 20 km above the earth’s surface, because no one has done this exact experiment. Actually, we know to a practical certainty what would happen in those cases, because we have an extraordinarily well-developed science of physics that is extremely successful at making predictions and that can predict what would happen in this case, and even take into account air resistance and the Coriolis effect.

Similarly, we have an extremely successful and well-developed science of optics that explains what happens to light as it passes through air, taking into account moisture, dust, and temperature and pressure gradients. So we can predict how the sun would appear to the observer in the diagram, and on the basis of the science of optics there is no reason to believe that the sun would appear to be on or near the horizon. Nor does optics give us any reason to believe that the sun would maintain the same angular diameter throughout its course. You know, scientists have studied light and its interactions with matter for centuries.

Sure, it’s possible that a very successful theory could be wrong in some respects. But then you have to provide some basis, in theory or experiment, for believing the theory to be wrong, if you want to be taken seriously.

And here’s the thing: we already have a theory that explains, simply, with great accuracy, and consistently with the rest of our scientific knowledge, how the sun and other celestial objects appear and their positions and paths through the sky. I understood this theory and how it explains these phenomena at around the age of 5 or 6, not because I was precocious but because it’s that simple to understand. And FET, in order to fix what isn’t broken, posits new, unsupported and unconfirmed theories of physics that are inconsistent with the rest of our scientific knowledge. What about Occam’s Razor?

Re: Some perspective on perspective
« Reply #64 on: May 06, 2016, 10:20:41 PM »
You asked for examples for why we should believe that things might be different when things are viewed by afar. I've satisfied this query. Now how about a real world example to show that things are how they should be under your theory?

Sorry, you are right. I was loose with my wording. Let me try again so you can't wiggle out of giving a straight answer:

Show us any reason at all why an object would behave differently at that distance than at any other distance... which can be used to explain how the sun appears to be behind the horizon when a simple diagram shows it to be 20 degrees away from the horizon.


Roundabout: well stated.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8252
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Some perspective on perspective
« Reply #65 on: May 07, 2016, 01:00:12 AM »
This is like saying we don’t know what would happen to a 15 kg cannonball dropped from an aircraft at 20 km above the earth’s surface, because no one has done this exact experiment. Actually, we know to a practical certainty what would happen in those cases, because we have an extraordinarily well-developed science of physics that is extremely successful at making predictions and that can predict what would happen in this case, and even take into account air resistance and the Coriolis effect.

The math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.

Should we just assume that the earth will get infinitely hotter the deeper we dig, because mines have been seen to get hotter with greater depth?

Simple math says that it should. But to assume that is a fallacy, as we do not have full knowledge of the conditions beyond our immediate reach.

Quote
Similarly, we have an extremely successful and well-developed science of optics that explains what happens to light as it passes through air, taking into account moisture, dust, and temperature and pressure gradients. So we can predict how the sun would appear to the observer in the diagram, and on the basis of the science of optics there is no reason to believe that the sun would appear to be on or near the horizon. Nor does optics give us any reason to believe that the sun would maintain the same angular diameter throughout its course. You know, scientists have studied light and its interactions with matter for centuries.

You know, scientists also believe in experimentation before coming to a conclusion.

Quote
And here’s the thing: we already have a theory that explains, simply, with great accuracy, and consistently with the rest of our scientific knowledge, how the sun and other celestial objects appear and their positions and paths through the sky.

"Zeus and the other gods did it" is also a theory that explains everything. That's why experimentation is necessary, I am afraid.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Some perspective on perspective
« Reply #66 on: May 07, 2016, 05:21:43 AM »
This is like saying we don’t know what would happen to a 15 kg cannonball dropped from an aircraft at 20 km above the earth’s surface, because no one has done this exact experiment. Actually, we know to a practical certainty what would happen in those cases, because we have an extraordinarily well-developed science of physics that is extremely successful at making predictions and that can predict what would happen in this case, and even take into account air resistance and the Coriolis effect.

The math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.

Should we just assume that the earth will get infinitely hotter the deeper we dig, because mines have been seen to get hotter with greater depth?

Simple math says that it should. But to assume that is a fallacy, as we do not have full knowledge of the conditions beyond our immediate reach.

If by "simple math" you mean data extrapolation, then yes, it tells us that the earth gets hotter the deeper we dig. There is no reason why it would get INFINITELY hotter, because the earth isn't infinitely deep. I suspect that people have much better ways to determine the temperature of the earth than just linear extrapolation though. Seismic data, computer models.... I'm no geologist, so I can't say much more on this issue.

Quote
You know, scientists also believe in experimentation before coming to a conclusion.

Indeed. But any experiment involving space just gets labelled as fake and ignored. Which is why we have to resort to little diagrams, and stuff that everybody can see with their own eyes. If you really want experiments having to do with the sun, this may be a good place to start looking.

I noticed you STILL haven't provided a reason why the sun would appear to set below the horizon when it is actually 20 degrees above the horizon. For a Zetetic, you seem to be stubbornly rejecting what is plainly visible with your own eyes: the sun goes below 20 degrees from the horizon. Isn't that the exact opposite of Zeteticism?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 05:25:16 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: Some perspective on perspective
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2016, 02:36:17 PM »
As the story goes, I think that the earth is flat in the same way that parallel lines touch.
In our perceived reality the earth is flat and if we travel south we might appear to see a wall of ice. Parallel lines touch because our perspective allows us to see only that much.

The fact is parallel lines don't touch and the earth is round, but it's not shameful to say that you they appear to be so.

Truth is for most of us it doesn't make any difference if the earth is flat or round. Things are sorted out for us already so we don't have to take earth's shape into account for our whole lives. However, when people will have to do something so big that they would have to take earth's shape into account, they will realize for themselves which theory works best for them. If you believe only what you see, go up there and see for yourself.