Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: August 23, 2017, 10:15:10 AM »
In a recent thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710.0), Tom Bishop said a couple of interesting things:

Quote
I have argued in favor of UA EA in the past when the theory was first proposed, but have since tended to prefer the theory that light travels in straight lines and that perspective is the explanation for why the view of the sun is limited, as opposed to refraction or the Universal Electro-Magnetic Accelerator (which works, but is something I now consider to be less empirical compared to other explanations).

...and...

The perspective lines meet at a finite distance, not an infinite distance as described by the Ancient Greeks. This describes why the sun appears to descent and meet the horizon a finite distance away, as opposed to an infinite distance away.

OK - so we've established that (barring the minimal effects of atmospheric refraction) Tom believes that light travels in straight lines.  ("Rectilinear propagation" to use fancy-talk)

This is an important breakthrough (for me, at least).

What we're left with is this notion that the conventional concepts of "perspective lines" and "vanishing points" is somehow incorrect.

But "perspective lines" and "vanishing points" are merely a consequence of light travelling in straight lines.  They are a convenience for artists and the like - but they aren't some fundamental part of physics.

So there is a contradiction in Tom's mind here...one that we should probe into.

Firstly, let's take the human eye, brain and all of that other messy stuff out of the picture.   Let's not even have a lens or anything else in the way of forming an image.

Let's think about the simplest optical device imaginable...a pinhole camera.

A light-tight box with a pinhole punched in the front and a photographic plate at the back.

 

There are thousands of photos of sunsets made by pinhole camera enthusiasts online - here is one of them:



So we know that pinhole cameras "see" sunsets...so whatever the mechanism that Tom subscribes to has to "work" with a pinhole camera.

Looking again at that diagram:

 

This is how perspective works with a pinhole camera.   When the tree is further away, the light coming through the pinhole makes a smaller image...right?

You can use the law of "similar triangles" to state that the height of the image on the back of the camera divided by the distance from image to the pinhole must equal the height of the tree divided by the distance from tree to pinhole.

That MUST be true if light travels in straight lines...it's elementary Euclidean geometry.

Put another way - we can come up with an equation for the height of the image:

   Himage / Dimage = Hsubject  / Dsubject

Where:
  Dimage = Distance from image to pinhole.
  Dsubject = Distance from subject to pinhole.
  Himage = Height of the image of the subject on the back of the camera.
  Hsubject = Actual height of the subject.

...which we can rearrange to:

   Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject

To make life easier, let's suppose our camera is one foot across.  So Dimage is one foot - and all of our distances are in feet...that simplifies the equation a bit:

  Himage = Hsubject / Dsubject

In English - the height of the image is the height of the subject divided by the distance it is from the camera.

This is "THE LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE" in a nutshell...just a single, simple equation that depends ONLY on the fact that light travels in straight lines and Euclidean geometry - and it's a proof that any high-school student could comprehend.

It IS indisputable.

So how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

Sorry Tom, you can't believe in "Light travels in straight lines" *AND* your funky version of perspective without denying the most basic Euclidean geometry.

Fundamentally - if at sunset, we know that the FET sun is 3000 miles up and 6000 miles west (Hsubject=3000 miles, Dsubject=6000 miles) - then a one foot long pinhole camera would show the sun to be 6" above the horizon...not the sunset that was actually photographed with a pinhole camera.

But not matter what - Tom's notions that the laws of perspective, known since the times of the Ancient Greeks are incorrect must be untrue.

So Tom....unless you wish to change your answer about how sunsets happen - we have here definitive proof that the Earth Is Not Flat.

More fundamentally:

If the Earth is truly Flat and if sunsets happen - light CANNOT travel in straight lines, and (as explained comprehensively in my previous thread) it CANNOT be due to refraction.

So, alas, poor Tom...you're back with "Electromagnetic acceleration" - which is a truly crappy hypothesis that's going to be VERY easy to disprove.   Trust me, I already have very simple evidence against that load of hogwash!

Are you now ready to admit that the world is not flat?   I really think you should.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 06:38:53 AM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2017, 12:44:16 PM »
I'm really liking these 3DGeek, and not just because they are excellent proofs, but I'm learning more precise details about the world around me from your posts which is awesome! This for example. I knew there was something fundamentally wrong with what Tom was trying to say, but I never would have thought to lay it out like this as I didn't know about pinhole cameras. Thank you for all the work you've been putting in here and in the other threads, even if Tom's head seems tougher to break through than Wolverine's. Even if he never ever admits a thing, these threads have been very interesting and educational for me and I hope others, so thank you.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 858
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2017, 02:30:33 PM »
I'm really liking these 3DGeek, and not just because they are excellent proofs, but I'm learning more precise details about the world around me from your posts which is awesome! This for example. I knew there was something fundamentally wrong with what Tom was trying to say, but I never would have thought to lay it out like this as I didn't know about pinhole cameras. Thank you for all the work you've been putting in here and in the other threads, even if Tom's head seems tougher to break through than Wolverine's. Even if he never ever admits a thing, these threads have been very interesting and educational for me and I hope others, so thank you.

I agree. The only reason I come here is to read posts like 3d made.  Science and problem solving is brain exercise.  Sitting on the couch watching TV is a great way to get fatter, not exercising your brain is a way to get dumber.

I am always fascinated by people that are so sure that what they believe is true that they can sweep away and ignore any evidence to the contrary.   The very definition of delusional is "characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."  You can't turn on the news with out seeing this in action.  Politics, religion, climate, guns, and conspiracies etc.  Every time some major event happens like a terror attack, mass shooting, whatever, instantly the internet comes alive with conspiracy theories about false flags, shadow governments, aliens etc.




« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 02:47:51 PM by TomInAustin »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2017, 04:15:31 PM »
I'm really liking these 3DGeek, and not just because they are excellent proofs, but I'm learning more precise details about the world around me from your posts which is awesome! This for example. I knew there was something fundamentally wrong with what Tom was trying to say, but I never would have thought to lay it out like this as I didn't know about pinhole cameras. Thank you for all the work you've been putting in here and in the other threads, even if Tom's head seems tougher to break through than Wolverine's. Even if he never ever admits a thing, these threads have been very interesting and educational for me and I hope others, so thank you.
I agree 100%. Thanks for making discussions here worthwhile (and even educational) for a change and keep up the great work :)

geckothegeek

Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2017, 05:42:54 PM »
I will have to agree with everyone.
Thanks 3DGeek !!!
But just a warning.
Just post "round earth facts" in the "debate" section.
I have received "bans" for posting them in the "Q & A" section.

geckothegeek

Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2017, 06:49:01 PM »
To TomInAustin

About your quote from Tom Bishop.:

Charles Lindbergh knew the distance from New York to Paris in 1927.
I had been under the impression that Tom Bishop was smarter than Charles Lindbergh ???
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 06:52:02 PM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 858
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2017, 07:17:09 PM »
To TomInAustin

About your quote from Tom Bishop.:

Charles Lindbergh knew the distance from New York to Paris in 1927.
I had been under the impression that Tom Bishop was smarter than Charles Lindbergh ???

Very good point.   
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8785
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2017, 12:52:06 PM »
So, alas, poor Tom...you're back with "Electromagnetic acceleration" - which is a truly crappy hypothesis that's going to be VERY easy to disprove.   Trust me, I already have very simple evidence against that load of hogwash!

Are you now ready to admit that the world is not flat?   I really think you should.

Alrighty then, go ahead and disprove it since it is so easy.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2017, 10:13:16 PM »
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2017, 08:47:42 AM »
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

So you are denying the law of similar triangles...do I really have that right?  Because if that is your last remaining defense...you lost the fight Tom.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2017, 11:52:57 AM »
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

Your world view is based on an ancient theory with no empirical proof that stands up to scrutiny. Am I missing something here?
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2017, 12:28:04 PM »
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

So you are denying the law of similar triangles...do I really have that right?  Because if that is your last remaining defense...you lost the fight Tom.

Why not use a law about the perspective lines intersecting when they meet in the distance? Why must we assume that they will travel for infinity?

You are attempting to tell us that two lines approaching each other will never meet, which is an absurdity. If two lines are approaching each other then logically they must meet at some point. In fact, they do seemingly meet, at the vanishing point, and you are trying to pass this meeting of the lines off as an illusion in favor of an ancient and unproven concept about infinities.

Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2017, 12:36:31 PM »
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

So you are denying the law of similar triangles...do I really have that right?  Because if that is your last remaining defense...you lost the fight Tom.

Why not use a law about the perspective lines intersecting when they meet in the distance? Why must we assume that they will travel for infinity?

You are attempting to tell us that two lines approaching each other will never meet, which is an absurdity. If two lines are approaching each other then logically they must meet at some point. In fact, they do seemingly meet, at the vanishing point, and you are trying to pass this meeting of the lines off as an illusion in favor of an ancient and unproven concept about infinities.
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2017, 01:47:00 PM »
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

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?

In our vision these lines do meet, at the vanishing point, and an attempt is being made to call this an illusion on the basis of ancient theories of infinity. The need for empirical proof is denied altogether, in favor of "theory".

Your assertion that they never "ACTUALLY" meet if you were to change your position and see the situation from a different perspective is irrelevant. From that position, they DO meet, which implies that the angles eventually merge, that photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once, and it is possible that some may be blocked out if the earth is not perfectly flat and there are any slight imperfections on the surface as the lines merge (sunset).

You are operating under the assumption that perspective is all an illusion, and that there is a greater reality that operates from a theoretical side angle view seen from outside of the universe, where these triangles and conclusions of infinities may be plotted onto a diagram, rather than reality operating in line with the rules of first person perspective observed.

We can see that my assertions on this matter are based in empiricism, on what actually is observed, whereas your assertions are based entirely on ancient theory.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2017, 01:51:15 PM »
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

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?

In our vision these lines do meet, at the vanishing point, and an attempt is being made to call this an illusion on the basis of ancient theories of infinity. The need for empirical proof is denied altogether, in favor of "theory".

Your assertion that they never "ACTUALLY" meet if you were to change your position and see the situation from a different perspective is irrelevant. From that position, they DO meet, which implies that the angles eventually merge, that photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once, and it is possible that some may be blocked out if the earth is not perfectly flat and there are any slight imperfections on the surface as the lines merge (sunset).

You are operating under the assumption that perspective is all an illusion, and that there is a greater reality that operates from a theoretical side angle view seen from outside of the universe, where these triangles and conclusions of infinities may be plotted onto a diagram, rather than reality operating in line with the rules of first person perspective observed.

We can see that my assertions on this matter are based in empiricism, on what actually is observed, and your assertions are based entirely on ancient theory.

I'm a little confused on the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that an optical illusion is, in fact, not an illusion and that the train tracks actually eventually touch? Does this mean that a train going down the tracks actually gets smaller as it travels away from you? Empiricism is fine to a point, but you can't trust your senses to give you an accurate picture of the world.

I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2017, 02:03:26 PM »
The angles you see touch. The angles are real. It is possible to see the situation from another position to get a different result, but the observed reality at the position you are at is the reality, for all intents.

Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2017, 02:09:52 PM »
What lines are you talking about? Railroad tracks? They don't meet. The ground and the level of your eyes? They don't actually meet either on level ground. So what lines are you talking about? Because the meeting of things in both of those cases is an optical illusion and nothing more.

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?

In our vision these lines do meet, at the vanishing point, and an attempt is being made to call this an illusion on the basis of ancient theories of infinity. The need for empirical proof is denied altogether, in favor of "theory".

Your assertion that they never "ACTUALLY" meet if you were to change your position and see the situation from a different perspective is irrelevant. From that position, they DO meet, which implies that the angles eventually merge, that photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once, and it is possible that some may be blocked out if the earth is not perfectly flat and there are any slight imperfections on the surface as the lines merge (sunset).

You are operating under the assumption that perspective is all an illusion, and that there is a greater reality that operates from a theoretical side angle view seen from outside of the universe, where these triangles and conclusions of infinities may be plotted onto a diagram, rather than reality operating in line with the rules of first person perspective observed.

We can see that my assertions on this matter are based in empiricism, on what actually is observed, and your assertions are based entirely on ancient theory.

I'm a little confused on the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that an optical illusion is, in fact, not an illusion and that the train tracks actually eventually touch? Does this mean that a train going down the tracks actually gets smaller as it travels away from you? Empiricism is fine to a point, but you can't trust your senses to give you an accurate picture of the world.


Which I think is actually exactly his point. I don't get how it took him this long to express it in any meaningful way, but that's neither here nor there. He's saying, in the same way the railroad track appears to merge is the way the sun vanishes. Because there's no longer enough definition (photons, pixels, what have you) for our eye to tell the difference between the sun and the ground. Which, in theory, would cause the sun to set.

The real issue is where the math comes into play. Because no matter what it 'looks' like, those angles we're talking about up there still exist. Just because we can't tell the difference between the two tracks, or the train looks the size of our thumb, doesn't make those things that way in reality. The light from the sun is still coming from the sun, it's still 3000 miles up. This is where the angles I was talking about in the airplane thread are important. Because of the height it still actually has, the angle of the light coming from it can never become flat. You can't have light coming from the sun at a less than ~8.5 degree angle (assuming a frankly enormous Earth). The sun can perhaps seem to vanish, but the light rays at that time should not be coming in at a flat angle. Assuming light doesn't bend ofc.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2017, 04:19:29 PM »
The angles you see touch. The angles are real. It is possible to see the situation from another position to get a different result, but the observed reality at the position you are at is the reality, for all intents.

So why does the Sun look larger on the horizon then?

BTW, you put W A Y to much stock in the vanishing point.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2017, 06:29:35 AM »
Quote
o how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof.

So you are denying the law of similar triangles...do I really have that right?  Because if that is your last remaining defense...you lost the fight Tom.

Why not use a law about the perspective lines intersecting when they meet in the distance? Why must we assume that they will travel for infinity?

You are attempting to tell us that two lines approaching each other will never meet, which is an absurdity. If two lines are approaching each other then logically they must meet at some point. In fact, they do seemingly meet, at the vanishing point, and you are trying to pass this meeting of the lines off as an illusion in favor of an ancient and unproven concept about infinities.
(I fixed my post at the top of the thread with pinhole camera images from a more reliable site - and also found a better pinhole camera photo of a sunset.)

@Tom: Since this stuff clearly confuses you (although it's hard to understand why), you may forget the "infinities" part - it is true - but it's not important to the discussion right now.  All that matters is that this equation describes the relationship between the height of the subject and image in a pinhole camera:

  Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject

This is an equation I've derived from the simplest geometry...and it relies ONLY on the law of similar triangles and that light travels in straight lines - nothing else is required.  You've admitted to the latter - and I don't think you disagree with basic high-school geometry...so anything beyond this is an attempt to evade the inevitable.

If the sun is setting where I'm standing - and it's noon someplace that's (say) 6000 miles away - then the sun is (say) 3000 miles above the FE ground and let's say, 6000 miles away horizontally.

Hsubject is the height of the sun above the ground (3000 miles), Dsubject is 6000 miles.

If my pinhole camera is 1 foot long then Dimage is 1 foot.

   Himage = 3000 miles x 1 foot / 6000 miles

Therefore if the Earth is flat, then a photograph of the sun at sunset should show the sun to be 3000/6000ths of a foot (6") above the horizon in the image...clearly it's NOT "setting" as it does in any of a gazillion photos of sunsets taken by pinhole camera enthusiasts.

So if the Earth is flat, you DON'T get sunsets in a pinhole camera.

You are welcome to plug in ANY numbers you like for the height of the sun above the FE ground and for the distance between the place where the sun is setting and the place where it's noon.   I don't care what numbers you choose for those things - Himage cannot be zero, so the FE sun cannot "set".

The ONLY two facts I relied upon to come to that conclusions are:

1) That light travels in straight lines.
2) The law of similar triangles.

I did NOT rely on infinities...human eye failings...ancient greek ideas about perspective...NOTHING.  Just those two things.

Now Mr Bishop - I'd like you to try to concentrate for a moment.

Your precious Flat Earth theory can ONLY be true if either:

1) Light DOES NOT travel in straight lines...
    ...OR...
2) The law of similar triangles is untrue.

If it would help you, I can provide you with the standard proof of (2) - it's one of the consequences of Euclidean geometry.  However, I'm sure you know how to use Google, so let's not clutter up the thread.

If I were you - I would not try to argue that (2) is the case.

You have a better chance of holding on to your (very tattered) FE theory by going with (1) and reversing your position on light travelling in straight lines.

At this point, you need your outdated (and frankly, utterly insane) "Electromagnetic Accelerator" theory to be bending light or else you're dead in the water here.

But I'm sure you're aware that I'm slowly boxing you into a corner using logic so simple that even a child could understand it.  Getting you to agree to non-straight light is just another step in my strategy to make your theory look even more silly than it already does.

Don't worry - I have lots more arguments like this - I can keep up this level of pressure for a LONG time to come...I might have eased off a bit because there are enough great arguments out there and the case is now well-proven.  Most of your fellow FE'ers have apparently given up on you.  But then you said my daughter (a proud ex-Navy officer) is an "untrustworthy murderer" and have failed to apologize for that...so...I'm planning to keep up the pressure.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 06:52:37 AM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2017, 07:48:31 AM »
Let's make it even simpler, so even Tom's limited understanding of geometry can withstand:



The top part of the diagram shows our trusty pinhole camera positioned towards the horizon at "sunset" - and a few thousand miles away we have a place where it's noon right now - so the sun is vertically overhead - and some fairly large distance above the ground.   The camera takes an inverted photo of the sunset.

The bottom part of the diagram simplifies things and adds labels...we can talk about these two triangles being "similar" because angle 'a' equals angle 'b' - we have right angles in both triangles and the third angle is therefore (90-a) and (90-b) - so the two triangles are similar by the "AAA" rule.   We can calculate the angle 'a' (it comes out to around 30 degrees with FET data) - so we know 'b' - and using that and the size of the camera, we can calculate Himage that way.   There are any number of ways to do this.

But we don't need to do any of that to prove that the world isn't flat...we can just use our eyes.

So...if the orange light ray and the green light ray are straight lines.   How can the image of the sun be on top of the image of the horizon?

Forget math, geometry, similar triangles, perspective...ignore all possible other confusions.

HOW THE HECK DOES THE FE WORLD GET SUNSETS?


(Oh!  Wait!  I know..."Check the Wiki" - right?)

The only possibility is that the light from the sun enters the pinhole parallel to the light from the horizon.  The light simply cannot be travelling in a straight line.

So EITHER the world is flat or light bends around curves for reasons that are evidently a complete mystery to FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

Now, Tom is on record as saying that he believes that light travels in straight lines - I quoted him directly at the top of this thread.

I think he now has to admit that he's made a mistake there...and we're back to the super-hokey "Electromagnetic Accelerator" idea.  (Which, I'm sure he knows we can make mincemeat of).

The interesting news here is that he can't flim-flam his way out of it - this is FAR too simple an argument.  So (I believe) we finally force him to shift his position on something.  It's a small step.  There will be more things - but this would be a start.

I shooting fish in a barrel fun?  Not really - but it's less fun for the fish.

   :-)
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?