Science and FET
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:07:34 PM »
(I’m starting a new thread because the discussion in “Some Perspective on Perspective” has drifted beyond the topic of perspective. I hope that’s OK.)

Here’s the problem for Flat-Earth Theory: By an unfortunate coincidence, the sun, Moon, planets, their moons, stars, and even the putative earth-orbiting satellites happen to look and move exactly like they would look if mainstream round-earth science were true. This is also true of the earth itself, with some disputed exceptions noted below, and of the purported photos of the earth from space. So the challenge for the FE camp is how to rationally persuade RE believers to hop on the FET bandwagon. The only way I can think of to do this is to demonstrate that FET explains the observations explained by mainstream RET science better than RET does. Here is where FET runs into some problems, for example in explaining how the sun appears to rise and set in a manner consistent with FET:

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.

The universal laws and principles of the physical sciences are independent of scale or location, otherwise they would not be universal. It’s reasonable to assume, for example, that chemistry follows the same principles on Neptune as it does on the earth, because those principles have been found to hold wherever they have been tested, and they have been tested very extensively indeed, experimentally and by other forms of observation. Of course it's conceivable that chemistry works on different principles on Neptune or the Andromeda galaxy, but we have no evidence pointing in that direction and therefore no good reason to think so.

The same is true of the laws and principles of thermodynamics, optics, gravitation, etc. If, after a vast amount of testing by observation including experimentation, we always find that light follows Fermat’s principle, i.e., takes the least-time path (usually a virtually straight line), then it’s reasonable to assume that light follows the same rule in a new situation, absent evidence to the contrary. (I know the situation is more complicated from the point of view of quantum mechanics, but let’s stick with macroscopic physics for the time being.)

Thus if we want to predict how the sun would appear at a height of 3000 miles above a point 8000 miles distant from the observer on a flat earth, the principles of optics and our knowledge of the composition and structure of the earth’s atmosphere will give us a pretty exact answer. Inconveniently for FET, the answer is not that the sun will appear to be setting. Of course, it is possible that our theories of optics could be wrong in some respects, such that the sun would appear on the horizon. But at this point we have absolutely no experimental or theoretical evidence that this is the case, so the rational prediction is the one given by our thoroughly tested and understood principles of optics and well-understood composition of the atmosphere. The only remotely plausible way the sun could appear to be setting, consistent with mainstream physics, is that the light from the sun undergoes a huge amount of refraction, which is inconsistent with what we know about the atmosphere and would cause the sun to appear somewhat rotated upward when setting (this could be checked with sunspots). And if you think mainstream physics is wrong, let’s please see some actual evidence.

Quote
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 gods did it” is not a scientific theory. In any case, scientists have already done a huge amount of experimentation and other types of observation, resulting in mainstream physics and astronomy, including a round earth. They’re quite amazingly successful in explaining what we observe. Virtually the only way in which flat-earthers claim mainstream physics and astronomy are unsuccessful is in explaining a relatively few supposed observations, such as the horizon remaining at eye level as you go up (no it doesn’t), water surfaces appearing to be flat, and ships’ hulls remaining visible many miles away. If you think these are real anomalies for RET (i.e., cannot be explained consistently with RET), then you should document them carefully and get them into a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You could just call them “unexplained anomalies” without mentioning the shape of the earth. Then we can talk; until then you just have unverified anecdotes.

And to be rationally persuaded to jump on the FET bandwagon, we need to see mutually consistent FET explanations of all the observations that mainstream physics and astronomy explain, and that explain some observations that the mainstream explanations cannot. We could start with the supposed spiral path of the sun above a flat earth: what is the FET explanation? Then we can move on to how the sun produces the energy it radiates, how starlight is produced, what explains the different spectra of stars, the different types of stars and their origins, galaxies and the red shift of their spectra, meteors, star clusters, binary stars, dust clouds in the Milky Way, Cepheid variable stars, the fact that the radar echo takes several minutes to return when a signal is bounced off Venus, the specific patterns of seismic waves, apparent volcanoes on planets and their satellites, and countless other observations, increasing by the day. Oh, and how the phases of the Moon appear simultaneously the same across the earth. The Wiki discussion of this topic (second half of http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon) appears not to understand what “phase of the moon” means, to dictionaries as well as astronomers.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 05:40:08 PM by Roundabout »

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2016, 11:42:28 PM »
The title of the thread "Science and FET" has two words that i never thought I would see in same sentence.

As you have found out Tom Bishop is prepared to bend anything (light, "universal laws", logic etc) to make the FE "look" plausible.
Look at:
It certainly does not work at the vanishing point of railroad tracks, as the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch. The observation is evidence that the world model as they described it is wrong.
Tom kept insisting that the "Greeks" were wrong when they asserted that parallel never meet! He says they "the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch." He cannot comprehend that "appearing to touch" is not the same as "actually touching". The whole interchange was quite enertaining and I think says a lot for the "Zetetic mind".
If you have the time you could follow it from: Some perspective on perspective « Reply #20 on: April 30, 2016, 10:49:11 PM ». It's really quite educational.

Re: Science and FET
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2016, 01:35:12 AM »
What the hell are you talking about? You do realize that according to mainstream science the moon is traveling the opposite direction as we see it going every night. You know east to west, just like the sun and stars. In heliocentric theory it supposedly orbits earth west to east, and somehow is magically locked with the face always pointing at the earth, eventhough the earth is constantly spinning.

Also, another amazing coincidence for mainstream heliocentric theory is that the moon just so happens to be both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun.

It's easy to force any theory to match observations when you're allowed to tweak the numbers to make them fit.

I didn't read beyond the first paragraph so I apologize if I didn't address the purpose of this post.

Re: Science and FET
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2016, 02:23:09 AM »
What the hell are you talking about? You do realize that according to mainstream science the moon is traveling the opposite direction as we see it going every night. You know east to west, just like the sun and stars.

You answered your own question one sentence later. The earth is constantly spinning. The earth is spinning faster than the moon is orbiting around the earth. This causes the moon to appear to rotate backwards relative to the surface of the earth. To illustrate this, stand on a merry-go-round. Have someone walk slowly around it. Then spin the merry-go-round faster than the person is walking. To the person on the merry-go-round, the person walking will appear to be rotating in the opposite direction.

Quote
and somehow is magically locked with the face always pointing at the earth, eventhough the earth is constantly spinning.

There is nothing magic about tidal locking. It is a direct result of Newtonian gravity. It does take a bit of effort to understand though. Here is an overview of the phenomena. Wikipedia provides a more detailed description.

Quote
Also, another amazing coincidence for mainstream heliocentric theory is that the moon just so happens to be both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun.

It is an interesting coincidence. Isn't it just as much of a coincidence in flat-earth theory that they are the same size? Also notice that they aren't EXACTLY the same apparent size. The moon has a much less circular orbit than the earth. This causes the moon to change it's apparent size much more than the sun.

Quote
It's easy to force any theory to match observations when you're allowed to tweak the numbers to make them fit.

I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. If the theory matches observations, and consistently makes accurate predictions, then what is the problem? Flat earth theory does neither of these things. In fact, I haven't even seen any equations that can be used to make predictions. Just vague descriptions of phenomena.

Quote
I didn't read beyond the first paragraph so I apologize if I didn't address the purpose of this post.

Please read the rest of the post if you want to make a meaningful contribution or objection to this thread. It is insightful and well written.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 04:15:31 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2016, 05:48:44 AM »
What the hell are you talking about? You do realize that according to mainstream science the moon is traveling the opposite direction as we see it going every night. You know east to west, just like the sun and stars.

You answered your own question one sentence later. The earth is constantly spinning. The earth is spinning faster than the moon is orbiting around the earth. This causes the moon to appear to rotate backwards relative to the surface of the earth. To illustrate this, stand on a merry-go-round. Have someone walk slowly around it. Then spin the merry-go-round faster than the person is walking. To the person on the merry-go-round, the person walking will appear to be rotating in the opposite direction.

Quote
and somehow is magically locked with the face always pointing at the earth, eventhough the earth is constantly spinning.

There is nothing magic about tidal locking. It is a direct result of Newtonian gravity. It does take a bit of effort to understand though. Here is an overview of the phenomena. Wikipedia provides a more detailed description.

Quote
Also, another amazing coincidence for mainstream heliocentric theory is that the moon just so happens to be both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun.

It is an interesting coincidence. Isn't it just as much of a coincidence in flat-earth theory that they are the same size? Also notice that they aren't EXACTLY the same apparent size. The moon has a much less circular orbit than the earth. This causes the moon to change it's apparent size much more than the sun.

Quote
It's easy to force any theory to match observations when you're allowed to tweak the numbers to make them fit.

I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. If the theory matches observations, and consistently makes accurate predictions, then what is the problem? Flat earth theory does neither of these things. In fact, I haven't even seen any equations that can be used to make predictions. Just vague descriptions of phenomena.

Quote
I didn't read beyond the first paragraph so I apologize if I didn't address the purpose of this post.

Please read the rest of the post if you want to make a meaningful contribution or objection to this thread. It is insightful and well written.
If you can get any constructive response from TheTruthIsOnHere you better that I!  Every comment he makes to my posts is completely negative, yet he will never present any feasible alternative! I don't believe he has ever started a thread of his own, just tears down other's posts.

I hope you get a more positive response.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 AM »
What I think is an amazing coincidence is that somehow the moon and sun don't collide with the flat earth, yet a ball I throw into the air comes back down again.
Is there some magic distance required to negate the UA?

*

Offline thatsnice

  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Don't you just love Reuleaux triangles?
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2016, 01:45:21 PM »
What I think is an amazing coincidence is that somehow the moon and sun don't collide with the flat earth, yet a ball I throw into the air comes back down again.
Is there some magic distance required to negate the UA?

They are going to say the Aether, magic fluid that causes UA and "meets" above the atmosphere plane and suspends things above the plane. The turbulence of the fluid causes vertical motion of the objects held within, and the swirling motion somehow causes consistent and predictable circular "orbiting" above the plane

Not making this up.
"You never go full retard."

Re: Science and FET
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2016, 11:20:40 AM »
Just saying this as a RE-er, lets not let this thread become an RE circle-jerk, lest we all look like a row of gaping fecal spraying posteriors.
Occasional poster, frequent observer.
Round Earth.

RE is a complex theory of simple answers.
FE is a simple theory of complex answers.


Also ignoring intikam.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2016, 04:47:26 PM »
The title of the thread "Science and FET" has two words that i never thought I would see in same sentence.

As you have found out Tom Bishop is prepared to bend anything (light, "universal laws", logic etc) to make the FE "look" plausible.
Look at:
It certainly does not work at the vanishing point of railroad tracks, as the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch. The observation is evidence that the world model as they described it is wrong.
Tom kept insisting that the "Greeks" were wrong when they asserted that parallel never meet! He says they "the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch." He cannot comprehend that "appearing to touch" is not the same as "actually touching". The whole interchange was quite enertaining and I think says a lot for the "Zetetic mind".
If you have the time you could follow it from: Some perspective on perspective « Reply #20 on: April 30, 2016, 10:49:11 PM ». It's really quite educational.

Well, we believe that the sun is "appearing to touch" and not "actually touching". By making that argument and agreeing that railroad tracks do observably touch you are in agreement with our position that we live in an imperfect universe where perspective at great distances does not necessarily adhere to the mathematical universe of the ancient greeks which says that two parallel lines will never touch.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 04:54:33 PM by Tom Bishop »
"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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2016, 04:55:23 PM »
Quote from: Roundabout
Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.

The universal laws and principles of the physical sciences are independent of scale or location, otherwise they would not be universal. It’s reasonable to assume, for example, that chemistry follows the same principles on Neptune as it does on the earth, because those principles have been found to hold wherever they have been tested, and they have been tested very extensively indeed, experimentally and by other forms of observation. Of course it's conceivable that chemistry works on different principles on Neptune or the Andromeda galaxy, but we have no evidence pointing in that direction and therefore no good reason to think so.

No, it is not reasonable to assume that chemistry would work the same under all pressures, at all temperatures, at all gravities.

Quote
And if you think mainstream physics is wrong, let’s please see some actual evidence.

How about you presents positive evidence that everything in science is the same at all scales, in all environments, and there are no other outside factors or effects to consider instead of "prove me wrong"?

Quote
“The gods did it” is not a scientific theory. In any case, scientists have already done a huge amount of experimentation and other types of observation, resulting in mainstream physics and astronomy, including a round earth.

What experiments did Stephen Hawking perform to come to his conclusions for the metric expansion of space?
"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: Science and FET
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2016, 05:11:38 PM »

Well, we believe that the sun is "appearing to touch" and not "actually touching". By making that argument and agreeing that railroad tracks do observably touch you are in agreement with our position that we live in an imperfect universe where perspective at great distances does not necessarily adhere to the mathematical universe of the ancient greeks which says that two parallel lines will never touch.
That literally does not and never will make sense tom.
If I wanted to test that myself, since I have straight tracks no more than a mile from my house, I could. Just rig up a battery to a transmitter and some aluminum plates. Hold the receiver and keep walking until they appear to touch (and then some). If I don't get a signal (and I won't) then that proves that they do not, in fact, touch. This means that parallel lines do not touch. They physically do not touch. True parallels will never touch. They neither converge nor diverge and are perfectly straight. There is no reason for them to touch.
Occasional poster, frequent observer.
Round Earth.

RE is a complex theory of simple answers.
FE is a simple theory of complex answers.


Also ignoring intikam.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2016, 05:56:16 PM »

Well, we believe that the sun is "appearing to touch" and not "actually touching". By making that argument and agreeing that railroad tracks do observably touch you are in agreement with our position that we live in an imperfect universe where perspective at great distances does not necessarily adhere to the mathematical universe of the ancient greeks which says that two parallel lines will never touch.
That literally does not and never will make sense tom.
If I wanted to test that myself, since I have straight tracks no more than a mile from my house, I could. Just rig up a battery to a transmitter and some aluminum plates. Hold the receiver and keep walking until they appear to touch (and then some). If I don't get a signal (and I won't) then that proves that they do not, in fact, touch. This means that parallel lines do not touch. They physically do not touch. True parallels will never touch. They neither converge nor diverge and are perfectly straight. There is no reason for them to touch.

Are you even reading what I'm writing? We DONT belive that the sun touches the surface of the earth. We are saying that it only appears to. Like the railroad tracks. The tracks observably touch in the distance. By agreeing that two parallel lines can be seen to touch in the distance, you are agreeing with us.

According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe.
"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: Science and FET
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2016, 07:04:10 PM »
Are you even reading what I'm writing? We DONT belive that the sun touches the surface of the earth. We are saying that it only appears to. Like the railroad tracks. The tracks observably touch in the distance. By agreeing that two parallel lines can be seen to touch in the distance, you are agreeing with us.

Good grief, we have been over this thoroughly in the other thread. Railroad tracks appear to touch when they are really far away, and the angle between them is very small, too small to distinguish with our eyes/camera. The angle between the sun and the horizon is NOT small. 20 degrees is NOT small. Do railroad tracks appear to touch 10 feet away from you? No. Because the angle between the tracks 10 feet away from you is roughly 20 degrees.

If you have any explanation as to why the sun would appear to be 0 degrees from the horizon when it is actually 20 degrees, feel free to post it (preferably in the other thread). This request was made ages ago in that other thread, and you continue to ignore it.

No, it is not reasonable to assume that chemistry would work the same under all pressures, at all temperatures, at all gravities.

Why not?

Quote
Quote
And if you think mainstream physics is wrong, let’s please see some actual evidence.

How about you presents positive evidence that everything in science is the same at all scales, in all environments, and there are no other outside factors or effects to consider instead of "prove me wrong"?

Because that would be literally impossible. You are basically asking us to observe every possible scenario in the Universe. The point of science is, among other things, to allow us to predict what will happen in a situation that we haven't directly observed yet. Physics is very very successful at this. If you want to question the validity of theories that have been successfully used for hundreds of years, then yes, the burden is on you to provide compelling evidence that it is wrong.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2016, 07:21:00 PM »
Good grief, we have been over this thoroughly in the other thread. Railroad tracks appear to touch when they are really far away, and the angle between them is very small, too small to distinguish with our eyes/camera. The angle between the sun and the horizon is NOT small. 20 degrees is NOT small. Do railroad tracks appear to touch 10 feet away from you? No. Because the angle between the tracks 10 feet away from you is roughly 20 degrees.

How do you know how perspective works at large scales? You don't think experimentation is necessary.

Quote
No, it is not reasonable to assume that chemistry would work the same under all pressures, at all temperatures, at all gravities.

Why not?

Because science relies on experimentation, not assumption.

Quote
Because that would be literally impossible. You are basically asking us to observe every possible scenario in the Universe. The point of science is, among other things, to allow us to predict what will happen in a situation that we haven't directly observed yet. Physics is very very successful at this. If you want to question the validity of theories that have been successfully used for hundreds of years, then yes, the burden is on you to provide compelling evidence that it is wrong.

Science requires experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Have you ever heard of the Scientific Method? It requires experimentation. The steps are not Hypothesize -> Conclusion.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 07:27:01 PM by Tom Bishop »
"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: Science and FET
« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2016, 07:30:10 PM »
According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe.
No. For the love of sanity no. They appear to touch because of how physically limited our eyes are. If we had infinite resolution on an infinitesimally small point, the they would never appear to touch. Our perception is not reality.

According to the ancient greeks, two pefectly straight lines (meaning no curves, bends, or angles) that are parallel (meaning they are neither converging nor diverging) will never touch. That is what they said it it is true. They never once said that our eyes would never percieve them to touch. And again, the difference between appear to touch and physically touch is very clear, and by all means should be obvious.

If I put my fingers close to my face so they appear to be larger than the guy in front of me, and close them, it'll appear I just crushed him. But lo and behold, I open my fingers and the man is unharmed, as if my hand wasn't actually large enpugh to crush him. Similar to how distant tracks don't touch, or the two passing cars on a road don't crash.

Perception is different from reality.
Occasional poster, frequent observer.
Round Earth.

RE is a complex theory of simple answers.
FE is a simple theory of complex answers.


Also ignoring intikam.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2016, 07:32:33 PM »
According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe.
No. For the love of sanity no. They appear to touch because of how physically limited our eyes are. If we had infinite resolution on an infinitesimally small point, the they would never appear to touch. Our perception is not reality.

According to the ancient greeks, two pefectly straight lines (meaning no curves, bends, or angles) that are parallel (meaning they are neither converging nor diverging) will never touch. That is what they said it it is true. They never once said that our eyes would never percieve them to touch. And again, the difference between appear to touch and physically touch is very clear, and by all means should be obvious.

If I put my fingers close to my face so they appear to be larger than the guy in front of me, and close them, it'll appear I just crushed him. But lo and behold, I open my fingers and the man is unharmed, as if my hand wasn't actually large enpugh to crush him. Similar to how distant tracks don't touch, or the two passing cars on a road don't crash.

Perception is different from reality.

Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.
"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: Science and FET
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2016, 07:57:25 PM »
Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.

And yet you STILL won't share any of those reasons with us.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2016, 08:20:45 PM »
Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.

And yet you STILL won't share any of those reasons with us

Perhaps perspective has a fundamental distance limit, and its unrealistic to expect that we should be able to see things extremely far away. If there were more experimentation for how perspective at large distances, a conclusion could be drawn for how perspective works at larger scales.

Why are you so against the need for experimentation?
"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

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Science and FET
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2016, 09:03:17 PM »
According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe.
No. For the love of sanity no. They appear to touch because of how physically limited our eyes are. If we had infinite resolution on an infinitesimally small point, the they would never appear to touch. Our perception is not reality.

According to the ancient greeks, two pefectly straight lines (meaning no curves, bends, or angles) that are parallel (meaning they are neither converging nor diverging) will never touch. That is what they said it it is true. They never once said that our eyes would never percieve them to touch. And again, the difference between appear to touch and physically touch is very clear, and by all means should be obvious.

If I put my fingers close to my face so they appear to be larger than the guy in front of me, and close them, it'll appear I just crushed him. But lo and behold, I open my fingers and the man is unharmed, as if my hand wasn't actually large enpugh to crush him. Similar to how distant tracks don't touch, or the two passing cars on a road don't crash.

Perception is different from reality.

Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.

Tom are you still on this distortion of what these "ancient Greeks" stated?
Surely you are NOT still claiming "According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe."

As far as I can find they NEVER did say that at all!
So if you are claiming someone (even "ancient Greeks") were wrong:

The ONUS on you is to quote where they stated parallel lines "should never appear to touch"! CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE!

I can find where they (well Euclid) postulated that lines that were NOT parallel DID meet.

You still cannot get out of you head that "appear to meet" and "actually meet" are two completely different things.

According to YOU two cars travelling in parallel lanes will ALWAYS crash in the distance. Well, I KNOW that does NOT happen.

And, I do not know why you keep harping on these "ancient Greeks". We do not follow their logic simply because they were "ancient Greeks".
Geometry has progressed since the with the work of numerous others (that I did present to you). The work of those "ancient Greeks" simply formed the basis it, yet as far as I know has not been proved wrong - just limited to Euclidean space.

But, I don't know where it all gets you! All you twisting of perspective does not come close to explaining
How the sun and moon can stay the same apparent size all the way from overhead till the certainly (appear to) set behind a cleat sharp horizon!

In addition often both go from having a full round disk visible to completely hidden in about TWO MINUTES - explain THAT with perspective, bendy light of fuzzy atmosphere of whatever you drag out of your hat today.

Start facing they FACTS of what we see with our own eyes - I thought THAT was Zetecism!

Re: Science and FET
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2016, 02:03:15 AM »
Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.
And yet you STILL won't share any of those reasons with us
Perhaps perspective has a fundamental distance limit, and its unrealistic to expect that we should be able to see things extremely far away.

But we ARE able to see the sun. Try again.

Quote
If there were more experimentation for how perspective at large distances, a conclusion could be drawn for how perspective works at larger scales.

Why are you so against the need for experimentation?

We have tons of experimental evidence that perspective works just fine at that scale. We have observed planets, the sun, the moon... all of which appear to be the correct size based on our understanding of perspective. We have been to the moon and looked back at the earth. We have sent probes to other planets, asteroids, and moons of other planets. No evidence has turned up indicating that perspective suddenly stops working at any distance around 3000 miles.

You demand experimental evidence that perspective doesn't suddenly stop working at large distances, but any experiment on the scale of 3000 miles is going to involve space. However, you automatically label anything involving space as "fake".

Do you see our problem? So: what kind of experiment would satisfy you? What do you propose?

Yes, it is possible that perspective suddenly stops obeying known physical laws at 3000 miles. But which theory is more likely: the one that behaves correctly according to all known physical laws, or the one that relies on sudden convenient lapses in physical laws in order to agree with reality? You tell me.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2016, 02:07:25 AM by TotesNotReptilian »