Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2017, 09:06:11 AM »
If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.

You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.

As already stated, the model proposed is simple geometry, basic drawing art class, and it indeed allows for an horizon. It's how our vision works, it's not a model for anything specific. The shape of the earth doesn't matter.

It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with those assumptions?

If you do, then the fact that shoehorning it on a flat earth doesn't match observation should tell you that, in fact, the earth is not flat. (As a matter of fact, if you apply it to a round earth, it matches perfectly  your beloved observation of horizons and mountain sitting on it)

If you don't, then elaborate.


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: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2017, 01:50:28 PM »
Its OK now this genius has arrived we'll have this case closed in a jiffy (he was in the navy you know). UzZIBiKeR dude you are truly our saviour! PS read the Wiki.......
Yikes!  Tom said that all members of the Navy are "untrustworthy murderers" - and when asked to retract that statement, he simply double-downed on it...so be careful whom you support UzZIBiKeR!

I agree though - just jumping into a subtly reasoned debate with RET assumptions that the FE'ers don't agree with is kinda pointless.
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: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2017, 02:10:17 PM »
We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.

Yes, Tom - you are 100% correct.  But the FE model that you propose doesn't "include the capability of a horizon" (without bending light)...and you, personally, are "designing a Flat Earth model" that does not include the capability of a horizon.  In fact, you say so yourself further down this very same post that I'm quoting!   You have to rely on atmospheric attenuation in order to explain why I can't see Mount Everest glowing brightly above the horizon at midnight from my back yard here in Texas.   That's because you could otherwise see forever across a flat, infinite plane.

Quote
If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.

You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.

Huzzah!  Tom finally gets it!

The Flat Earth model certainly doesn't include the possibility of a horizon...so it's WRONG..  Quod erat demonstrandum...game, set and match.

Quote
The higher you go the farther the horizon would be, but unfortunately you do not listen very well. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. At extreme altitudes, such as from a military fighter jet in your example, you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere.  The true "horizon" at very high altitudes is farther than what you see.

You can tell that this is happening because at high altitudes where the artificial horizon on a plane's instrumentation is above the observable horizon, the horizon is no longer sharp or defined, and is seen as a gradual gradient. It should be no surprise, then, under such conditions basically absent of a horizon that the artificial horizon would be above the level of the land.

It's convenient that you mention this - so you're admitting that in your FE world, the "horizon" can't be seen because it's fuzzed away by the atmosphere.  YOUR MODEL DOESN'T HAVE A WELL DEFINED HORIZON...which is why you use the words:  "you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere."

When you view the earth from sufficiently high altitudes, the atmosphere is so thin that it doesn't block much light and you can see the horizon very clearly...and it doesn't stretch off to infinity.  You can't see a brightly lit Mount Everest from a high altitude balloon over Texas either.

This is what we've been telling you!

It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of!   If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

MY MODEL is of a round earth - and the horizon is just the point where the curvature of the globe is at a tangent to my sight line...my model works just fine with the diagrams I draw - and there is a horizon that you can see clearly on a clear day.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2017, 01:55:14 AM »
Repeating for emphasis:
It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

This is a classic proof by contradiction.

1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)

badaboom, realest globe in the room

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2017, 02:26:14 AM »
Repeating for emphasis:
It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

This is a classic proof by contradiction.

1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)

badaboom, realest globe in the room

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #45 on: September 24, 2017, 02:28:19 AM »
Perspective, being defined by direct observation, is the same regardless of the shape of the Earth.

also: In this thread, those assertions are taken from flat earth literature, and some directly from you. so if you have contention with those assertions, take it up with yourself

double also: Please respond to 3DGeek's post, if you have the inclination to continue the thread. I intended for my comment to be something of an expansion or clarification on his.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #46 on: September 24, 2017, 08:13:08 AM »
Repeating for emphasis:
It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

This is a classic proof by contradiction.

1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)

badaboom, realest globe in the room

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
'Perspective' does not behave, it's simply about describing things in the distance.

How are you getting on comparing your observations with timeanddate.com?

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #47 on: September 24, 2017, 08:48:49 AM »

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
Quote
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with these assumptions?

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: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2017, 05:11:45 PM »
Read this line carefully everyone:


If a light ray starts off at the sun (around 3,000 miles above the ground) - and if it travels in a straight line - and if it ends up going horizontally into our eyes  (or into a pinhole camera) to produce a sunset - THEN the Earth cannot be flat.

Put yet more simply:

The FET sun, the horizon and our eyes do not lie in a straight line - but photons travel in straight lines and we DO observe sunsets - hence FET is impossible.

We don't have to get tied up in knots about perspective...whatever funky arguments Tom wishes to make...no matter what perspective does or how it works, the photons have to travel from A to B in a straight line - and to get from the sun down to the level of the horizon and thence into our eyes - the photons would have to curve or to have a kink in their path.  (The fact of the under-lit clouds at sunset actually means that the photons would have to reverse direction and head UPWARDS - so it's even worse than that in reality).

Ergo - one of the predicates in that first sentence has to be incorrect.  Yet, as we've seen:

  • Tom agrees that light travels in straight lines.
  • Tom agrees that sunsets do happen.
  • Tom claims (although he seems to be having a hard time saying the actual words) that the sun is at a physical "location" around 3,000 miles above the ground.[\li]
    • Tom claims that the Earth is flat.

    One of those four statements MUST be incorrect - it cannot be otherwise.  The first two are really self-evident.  Which leaves the last two.

    So we may deduce that either the FET model of the sun maintaining a more or less constant altitude is wrong (which would require a MAJOR rewrite of FET) - or FET itself is wong.

    Tom is simply unable to answer the simplest of questions in this thread without unravelling the entire tissue of untruths and misapprehensions that is the flat earth theory.  Several of us have asked more or less the same simple questions.  None of us has gotten an answer to those questions without evasions and flim-flam.

    Since Tom has gone SO many days - and replied evasively so many times - we KNOW that he knows that he dare not answer these very simple questions.

    Guys - the debate is over.   Tom Bishop can no longer prove the flat earth theory - even in his own mind.  Not a single one of his Flat-Earther buddies are daring to touch this thread to come to his aid - which suggests that either they've been convinced - or that they never really were Flat Earthers in the first place.

    Of course it would be nice if he'd "man up" and answer these questions (which we already know the answer to) so we can execute the coup de grace...and it would be better still if he said something  like "You know what...I guess we don't know how sunsets work in the Flat Earth" - or better still admit that the evidence demonstrates that the Earth is round.

    But those things are unlikely to happen.

    He's probably going to blather on about "perspective" while refusing to explain how photons from an object that's 3000 miles above the ground can wind up skimming across the horizon and into our eyes while travelling in a straight line.

    I don't know why he thinks this is a convincing argument...but it's clearly wrong.  Numerous other disproofs that have been offered on this forum have also gone un-refuted.  This one may be the simplest to understand.

    So where do we go from here?   It's taken a lot of different arguments over the past few months to find the one that's simple enough to provide a one-sentence proof.  It feels like the RET case is now comprehensively proven.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2017, 05:38:57 PM »

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
Quote
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with these assumptions?

You have no knowledge on how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?

Read this line carefully everyone:

If a light ray starts off at the sun (around 3,000 miles above the ground) - and if it travels in a straight line - and if it ends up going horizontally into our eyes  (or into a pinhole camera) to produce a sunset - THEN the Earth cannot be flat.

If that space of 3,000 miles is merged to one point, and that point is level with our eye, than it makes perfect sense that the photons travel along that path and reach our eye. The point is 90 degrees from zenith in its orientation around us; therefore the light is approaching the eye from that 90 degree angle.

If we see the sun at the horizon at that 90 degree angle, the sun also sees us at its horizon at a 90 degree angle. The photons are leaving the sun at the same angle they are coming in. 90 degrees. There is no contradiction.

You are assuming that it is only all incoming light that is squished with perspective. It is also all outgoing light that is squished. You are assuming that it is only human eyes that experience perspective. All objects experience perspective. From the POV of the sun, it is sending out a photon directly at the observer.

The actual path is IRRELEVENT in your attempted model of the scene because, as we have already discussed, the model is an incorrect representation of reality. It only represents how you think things should be based on rules which have never been seen. No one has ever seen your infinitely-approaching-perspective-lines nonsense. That is completely hypothetical.

The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2017, 07:29:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #50 on: September 24, 2017, 06:10:42 PM »
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?

The Ancient Greeks, who came up with that theory, have never demonstrated that hypothesis. No attempt of evidence has been provided, or even attempted. That idea is completely hypothetical. Why should we base reality on completely hypothetical ideas?

You claim to know the "rules" of the universe, but have no piece of evidence to point towards to justify your idea that perspective lines infinitely approach each other.

The only true rules come from the universe itself, and it is observed that a horizon exists. If your hypothetical rule list can't comprehend with that when you attempt to make a model, then tough. It's wrong.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #51 on: September 24, 2017, 06:46:57 PM »
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?

The Ancient Greeks, who came up with that theory, have never demonstrated that hypothesis. No attempt of evidence has been provided, or even attempted. That idea is completely hypothetical. Why should we base reality on completely hypothetical ideas?

You claim to know the "rules" of the universe, but have no piece of evidence to point towards to justify your idea that perspective lines infinitely approach each other.

The only true rules come from the universe itself, and it is observed that a horizon exists. If your hypothetical rule list can't comprehend with that when you attempt to make a model, then tough. It's wrong.
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat. The diagram showing the sun is 20 degrees above the horizon (and thus light should come in from that direction) isn't based on anything but the distances 'known' to the sun upon a flat plane at that time. It's literally only in your FE idea that these rules don't work. So once again, where is your evidence that perspective bends light? Because that's what you're claiming here in reality.

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #52 on: September 24, 2017, 06:52:16 PM »

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
Quote
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with these assumptions?

You have no knowledge how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?

Distance has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Which of those assumptions you disagree with, or you feel is unwarranted?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #53 on: September 24, 2017, 07:11:11 PM »
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.

P1. Cameras without lenses experience perspective
C. Perspective is not a lens phenomenon

Quote
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.

Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.

Quote
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.

The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #54 on: September 24, 2017, 07:13:55 PM »
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #55 on: September 24, 2017, 07:16:37 PM »
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?

Watch the video in the OP.

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #56 on: September 24, 2017, 07:19:20 PM »
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?

Watch the video in the OP.
I did, it's an awful mess. No you draw one with all the correct quotes. While you are at it, please answer my more serious question about assumptions :)

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #57 on: September 24, 2017, 09:14:07 PM »
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.

P1. Cameras without lenses experience perspective
C. Perspective is not a lens phenomenon

Quote
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.

Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.

Quote
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.

The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.
A) Cameras operate using the same system of vision we do. They are equipped to 'see' the world in much the same way we do, because we know of no other way to view the world in a visual manner.
B) Railroad tracks don't change by 20 degrees. The model perfectly predicts where the tracks will be in a given image based on their distance from the observer. Try again.
C) The sideview model isn't based on any assumption about the Earth. It's to determine where an object physically is. Once again, without a mechanism to move the sun 20 degrees lower than it physically is, you can't have sunlight coming in at 0 degrees or less.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #58 on: September 24, 2017, 10:47:01 PM »
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.

P1. Cameras without lenses experience perspective
C. Perspective is not a lens phenomenon

Quote
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.

Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.

Quote
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.

The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.
You are still clinging onto your very own definition of perspective.  It's not clear what you are trying to prove.

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2017, 12:11:40 AM »
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?


This perspective argument is crazy. Is this whole idea just a big joke? I can't tell any more.

Perspective lines can't ever touch because they are NOT REAL. Perspective means, how we perceive something. It doesn't mean how it is in reality.

I'll stick to the railroad track argument because it is so simple. If you stand between the rails, the rails appear to become closer in the distance. It has nothing to do with the horizon. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch? Because for these angles to meet the rails would touch. And regardless of their meeting or not, no matter how far down these tracks, to the horizon, to the tree line, to half way up the picture, the rails are the same distance apart. I know this because the trains that travel the tracks don't shrink as they move away from us. Even if it looks like they do.

And yes we all believe in the horizon. It's where the Earth appears to meet the sky. It happens because the Earth is round and slopes gradually away. These arguments giving magic properties to "perspective" just don't make sense.

Reference the picture of the tracks. You look down them and see rails moving at angles getting closer. If someone else was standing 300 feet down those same tracks and looked back at you, what would they see? Rails moving at angles getting closer. So how can either perspective be said to have anything to do with the reality of the rails?