#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7520
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2017, 01:21:52 PM »
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

"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

#### inquisitive

• 1066
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2017, 02:28:21 PM »
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

Omits to show angles from several places at the same time.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2017, 04:32:20 PM »
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

Tom, I told you why that video is irrelevant in the other thread. Parallel lines can't cross. Them crossing/meeting in the distance is an optical illusion/limitation of visual equipment. The sun *may* be able to appear to set due to perspective on a flat Earth, but so long as light travels in straight lines, you cannot ever see the light from the sun coming in at a declination of less than 8.5 degrees above the horizon. That's what the math here is showing us. Distance and height are quite clear on that. Perspective cannot change where something actually is, or it's actual size.

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2017, 06:42:47 PM »
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view.

Sorry - how?   I draw a diagram showing the path of light from the sun to the back of a super-simple camera.  These cameras exist - I used to have one - it's not "outside of the universe".

Human eyes do very similar things to pinhole cameras - and I can draw that diagram if it helps (it doesn't).

This isn't some abstract or complicated thing.  Two rays of light travel through a small hole and form an image.

How does that image produce a sunset?

It's a simple question Tom.

Very VERY simple.

Even people with an elementary school education can follow this argument.

Tell me what is wrong with my diagram.   The light from the sun travels in straight lines - and hits the back of the camera to expose film.   If the light isn't "bent" how the hell can the image of the sun touch the image of the horizon...as it plainly does.

Just explain that to me.

(Yeah - I know you can't - so you're jumping off into la-la land and desperately trying to redirect a VERY simple explanation into some confusing mess that you hope will derail the conversation.)

JUST TELL ME WHAT'S NOT TRUE ABOUT MY DIAGRAM.

(Or admit that you're wrong.)
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### geckothegeek

##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2017, 02:13:39 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.

The pinhole camera diagram seems to be rather elementary, My Dear Watson.
On any camera, lens or pin hole, the closer to the subject the camera is , the large the image in the camera is.

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2017, 08:46:35 AM »

The pinhole camera diagram seems to be rather elementary, My Dear Watson.
On any camera, lens or pin hole, the closer to the subject the camera is , the large the image in the camera is.

Stripped to it's bare essentials - this is the only thing anyone needs to understand why there cannot be FE sunsets:

It really doesn't get any simpler than that - and Tom is now resorting to his usual flim-flam tactics - which is how you know he's beaten.

So Tom - please address this point - or give up.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### Rounder

• 779
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2017, 04:54:41 PM »
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.
Don't be so sure.  We've seen Tom deny that large-scale geometry works the same way that small-scale geometry works.  That alone is an explicit rejection of high school geometry.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

#### frodo467

• 18
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2017, 08:01:09 PM »
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

So according to this video, according to perspective, the sun and the horizon will meet, and the parallel railroad tracks will meet.  Fine, I will give you that, but the real issue here is that what is observed to be happening with the sun and the horizon is that the parallel lines (railroad tracks, horizon\sun) CROSS.

The sun sets and goes out of sight.  It doesn't simply meet the horizon in the distance and then stay there at eye level which is what we would expect from a forced perspective of two parallels.  What we observer is the lines cross (the horizontal line of the sun crosses the horizontal line of the horizon) which is impossible in a forced perspective parallel.

Your perspective argument is invalid because of this.  Two parallel lines will appear to meet, but they will never appear to cross.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7520
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2017, 07:54:27 PM »
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.

:-)

If the camera is seeing the sunset why is the sun high in the sky? By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset. An observer with a camera seeing the sunset will see the sun at the horizon, not high in the sky.
"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

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2017, 09:55:46 PM »
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.

:-)

If the camera is seeing the sunset why is the sun high in the sky? By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset. An observer with a camera seeing the sunset will see the sun at the horizon, not high in the sky.

The sun is where you FE'ers tell us it is.  Roughly 6,000 miles away - and 3,000 miles vertically above some distant place where the time is still noon.

Remember - you AREN'T telling us that the sun literally lowers to the ground and leaves a gigantic 30 mile scorch-mark on the dirt...right?   (Pretty sure that's not what you're saying).

You said: "By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset." - but you don't literally mean that...right? (If you do, then we have that giant scorch mark!)  You must mean something like: "It appears, to the human eye, as if the sun was at the horizon at sunset"...which is the point that we RE'ers cannot understand.

If it only "appears" that the sun is at the horizon - but "really" it's 3,000 miles above some far distant place where it's noon right now.   Is that a correct statement?

So...we're back to asking you "How is it possible for light to travel in a straight line from the sun, through the pinhole (or through your iris...same deal) and hit the film at the back of the camera (or your retina...same deal) at the same exact spot as the horizon line.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### devils advocate

##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2017, 10:16:44 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.

Tom its surely not based on theory alone. A pair of railway tracks WILL carry on far beyond the point in the distance they appear to meet. Take any train you wish Tom and you will see that you travel on these parallel lines beyond the point they ever appear to meet. Stop at every station along the line and look as the tracks join in the distance, get back on the train and travel beyond that point. Yes parallel lines WILL continue infinitely without touching even though empirically they appear to point towards each other.

#### inquisitive

• 1066
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2017, 10:22:33 PM »
Any explanation of sunset has to also explain sunrise at another location at the same time and every measurement and observation in between.

Tom has not disagreed with any of the data published in timeanddate.com

#### devils advocate

##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2017, 10:29:18 PM »
Any explanation of sunset has to also explain sunrise at another location at the same time and every measurement and observation in between.

Tom has not disagreed with any of the data published in timeanddate.com

Very good point Inquisitive. How do the FE explain simultaneous sunrise and sunset around the earth? Tom any thoughts??

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7520
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2017, 03:47:34 AM »
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.
"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

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2017, 05:42:29 AM »
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.
Have you considered the math and diagrams don't work because reality isn't flat? If the Earth was a globe none of these problems would exist. Otherwise we're back to perspective somehow actually alters reality, or light doesn't travel in straight lines.

#### devils advocate

##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2017, 08:12:37 AM »
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.

Tom it reads here like you are saying that reality is based solely on what we see, as in how we perceive reality is the truth of reality. This cannot be so:

If I hold a child's toy cow (6cm long) and stand in a field of real cows I can hold the toy up to the real cows and see clearly that the toy is much smaller. If I then walk away from the field and repeat I will soon reach a point where I hold the toy cow up so that it appears to be next to a real cow in the distant field and THEY BOTH APPEAR TO BE THE SAME SIZE.

We know that they are not the same size though don't we Tom or does your empirical argument state that as they look the same size they must be?

#### Ga_x2

• 178
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2017, 08:21:15 AM »
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.

Tom it reads here like you are saying that reality is based solely on what we see, as in how we perceive reality is the truth of reality. This cannot be so:

If I hold a child's toy cow (6cm long) and stand in a field of real cows I can hold the toy up to the real cows and see clearly that the toy is much smaller. If I then walk away from the field and repeat I will soon reach a point where I hold the toy cow up so that it appears to be next to a real cow in the distant field and THEY BOTH APPEAR TO BE THE SAME SIZE.

We know that they are not the same size though don't we Tom or does your empirical argument state that as they look the same size they must be?
this is precisely what I had in mind, as a matter of fact I was looking for this video here, as an example:

#### Obviously

• 75
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2017, 03:03:24 PM »
You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view.

This is so hilarious Tom! Outside the universe? I'm starting to suspect that flatheadism is a drug-induced state - maybe we should investigate the prescriptions these guys are taking. Seriously, wtf do you have to be smoking to come up with stuff like that? Every time Tom encounters something that destroys the FE hoax, he seems to come up with crazier and crazier excuses.

I've asked you this before in another thread, and I'll ask it here again: do you really think that the view affects reality? The answer is obviously no.

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2017, 04:35:03 PM »
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.

OK...Tom - you have officially gone off the rails here.

So you are saying that at sunset, the sun is LITERALLY at the horizon.   How come it doesn't set light to the ground when it touches it?    How come people 6,000 miles away can clearly see that it's 3,000 miles above their heads?

You are telling us that the light from the sun makes it APPEAR to be on the horizon...not that it literally descends from the eye and touches the ground...right?

The point here is that the diagram is based upon what you tell us is the literal position of the physical sun orb.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7520
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2017, 04:51:42 PM »
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.
Have you considered the math and diagrams don't work because reality isn't flat? If the Earth was a globe none of these problems would exist. Otherwise we're back to perspective somehow actually alters reality, or light doesn't travel in straight lines.

Your perspective diagrams are entirely insufficient. None of your perspective diagrams consider that the lands ascend upwards to meet the sun, as an example. Therefore they are insufficient as a representation of perspective.
"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