Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #160 on: October 04, 2016, 12:19:38 AM »
Still have your fingers firmly implanted in your ears, repeating the same refuted argument I see... Whatever. Just answer the question:

Fine. What evidence would convince you? If I am able to correctly predict the size of an object on a picture based on its size and distance using the "ancient greek math", would that convince you? I'm not going to waste my time if you are just going to cry "fake".

I don't know. Would that prove that the perspective lines perpetually approach each other for infinity?

No. My point is that we can predict the angular distance between two objects based on distance. I can demonstrate that the math works for this.

I ask again. If I am able to correctly predict the size of an object on a picture based on its size and distance using the "ancient greek math", would that convince you that the math works? Please note that this question has nothing to do with anything an infinite distance away.

Quote
Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
Ah yes. Highly theoretical highschool geometry.
The same geometry fantasy which says that perfect circles exist when they, in fact, do not.

*sigh*, fine, I'll bite. Which part of geometry states that perfect circles exist? Please be specific.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #161 on: October 04, 2016, 12:45:08 AM »
I would think that since Pi is an irrational that you would never be able to get an exact answer.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3845
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #162 on: October 04, 2016, 12:53:17 AM »
Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
Ah yes. Highly theoretical highschool geometry.

The same geometry fantasy which says that perfect circles exist when they, in fact, do not.
As opposed to the geometry fantasy which says that the sun can recede into the far distance without decreasing in angular size?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #163 on: October 04, 2016, 06:29:25 AM »
The actual fact of the matter is that not all parallel lines seem to converge AT the vanishing point of a person, they would only converge along the midpoint of the projected line in the middle of these two parallel lines! If someone was standing in the middle of a flat piece of desert, and in the middle of parallel lines were stretched out in front of him at widths apart of one inch, one foot, one yard, 100 yards, 1000 yards, 5000 yards, 3 miles, and some further outside his vision, the first 3 would appear to touch well within his vanishing point, the 4th maybe near the VP, while the others would only appear to be converging inwards to meet way beyond the VP or will not even be visible yet. Add two parallel lines 32 miles high, but 6000 miles apart, visible just above the horizon (ie the size the sun appears to be) and these lines will not even seem to converge at all, apart from the fact that they would start to look much smaller than the sun as they recede into the distance. In fact if you could still see these lines 9000 miles in front of you and they ended, there would still be an angle of over 40 degrees between them. Now turn this point of view through 90 degrees an imagine it in the vertical plane. The same would apply.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #164 on: October 08, 2016, 03:32:40 PM »
FE silenced, so let's add some more pressure! Another question for the boffins, how can perspective change every day? To show this simply, take a city like Quito in Ecuador, and the solstices in March and December. the sun rises and sets at the same times on both these days, but using the FE model the sun will be about 28% further away when it disappears! Surely perspective should be consistent?
We will not even go into the cases when the sun sets or rises over the ocean in places where the distance to the sun on the horizon vanishing point could be easily shown as over 3 times the distance comparing winter sunrises/sunsets during winter months to summer months on FE maps. Please explain how perspective changes with season!

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #165 on: October 08, 2016, 06:20:18 PM »
FE silenced, so let's add some more pressure! Another question for the boffins, how can perspective change every day? To show this simply, take a city like Quito in Ecuador, and the solstices in March and December. the sun rises and sets at the same times on both these days, but using the FE model the sun will be about 28% further away when it disappears! Surely perspective should be consistent?
We will not even go into the cases when the sun sets or rises over the ocean in places where the distance to the sun on the horizon vanishing point could be easily shown as over 3 times the distance comparing winter sunrises/sunsets during winter months to summer months on FE maps. Please explain how perspective changes with season!

Solstices are in June and December, not March. Also, it would be helpful to show how you came up with your 28% figure. You do have a good point, but lets try to stick to the topic, since this thread is already rather lengthy. Here is a thread that deals with sunset/sunrise times and how they relate to distances. Or, you are welcome to start a new thread.

The actual fact of the matter is that not all parallel lines seem to converge AT the vanishing point of a person, they would only converge along the midpoint of the projected line in the middle of these two parallel lines! If someone was standing in the middle of a flat piece of desert, and in the middle of parallel lines were stretched out in front of him at widths apart of one inch, one foot, one yard, 100 yards, 1000 yards, 5000 yards, 3 miles, and some further outside his vision, the first 3 would appear to touch well within his vanishing point, the 4th maybe near the VP, while the others would only appear to be converging inwards to meet way beyond the VP or will not even be visible yet. Add two parallel lines 32 miles high, but 6000 miles apart, visible just above the horizon (ie the size the sun appears to be) and these lines will not even seem to converge at all, apart from the fact that they would start to look much smaller than the sun as they recede into the distance. In fact if you could still see these lines 9000 miles in front of you and they ended, there would still be an angle of over 40 degrees between them. Now turn this point of view through 90 degrees an imagine it in the vertical plane. The same would apply.

We have already kind of beaten to death what WOULD happen at really long distances. The problem is that Tom Bishop just straight up denies what would happen according to common sense and basic mathematics. His logical reasoning for discounting the math has already been shown to be nonsensical, but he insists the burden of proof is on us to disprove his own theories rather than on him to provide proof positive. I offered to show that the math works using photos, but he dodged that offer as well, so at this point I don't think there is much more to be said.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #166 on: October 08, 2016, 09:10:20 PM »
No, the burden is on you to prove your own theories.

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #167 on: October 08, 2016, 10:54:02 PM »
No, the burden is on you to prove your own theories.

I have bad news Tom. You seem to have your fingers permanently embedded in your ear holes. Surgery might be your only option. Oh well, at the risk of repeating myself... I have provided as much proof as can be expected on an anonymous internet forum:

1. I provided logical reasoning. I showed why your infinity arguments were ridiculous.
2. I outlined several ways that you can empirically prove to yourself that the math works for any testable distance.
3. I offered to show that the math empirically works at any testable distance using photographs, but you dodged the offer.

Your only argument remaining is "maybe the math works differently at longer distances". These distances are not testable without appealing to astronomical data that you automatically claim is faked/wrong. Therefore, this argument is unfalsifiable. Therefore, the burden is on you to offer proof positive that the math works differently at long distances, because proof negative is literally not possible. So far, you have offered none. Instead, you settle for trying to cast doubt on other peoples theories, rather than trying to support your own.

Tom, you constantly make claims of having higher ethical standards than the rest of the scientific community. But this is not how honest scientists behave. Honest scientists don't settle for nitpicking other peoples theories and claiming that as proof that their own counter theories are true. Honest scientists try their hardest to find holes in their OWN theories. They gladly accept the burden of proof, rather than constantly casting it off on someone else. You sound more like a defense lawyer, desperately trying to find legal loopholes to allow his serial killer client escape a guilty verdict. That is not how honest scientists work. This is not how honest scientists come to conclusions.

Speaking of honesty, how much longer are you going to ignore this post?

Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« Reply #168 on: October 08, 2016, 10:57:25 PM »
No, the burden is on you to prove your own theories.
Proven by many, many times. Which particular one do you have a problem with and please show your proof of an alternative.  You are in the minority and have yet to prove any of your beliefs are correct.

Have you checked any satellite dish angles to dermine the transmitter location, simple to do for anyone unsure of their location, as you are.