Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2017, 12:24:52 PM »
I think I should elaborate on my previous comment, to avoid further misconceptions cluttering the discussion.
The accepted model for perspective (i.e. what's being used by anyone in the world outside this corner of the internet) does not assume a round earth. This is simple geometry, and the shape of the earth doesn't play any role.

The only assumptions, in order to draw any perspective, are that:
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.

That would mean that the horizon is a mere consequence of the geometry of the objects involved.

So, Tom, I understant that you are already on record accepting B).
Do you think that A) or C) are incorrect?

There isn't really anything more to perspective. As I said, it's something one learns at any art class.
cheers,

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2017, 12:47:11 PM »
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.

The horizon is not represented in that side view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.

However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 12:57:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2017, 12:49:07 PM »
There is nothing wrong with the side view!

Yes, there is something wrong. Under that side view model things would infinitely approach the horizon, but never touch it. The fact that a distant mountain can get above the level of the horizon line shows that the model is inaccurate in its assumptions and representations of reality.

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2017, 12:55:16 PM »
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.

The horizon is not represented in that size view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.

However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2017, 12:57:22 PM »
The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world.

Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.
NOT when the model is about finding the location of the sun. The vanishing point is not a physical thing. The ground does not physically rise up to meet your eyes (right? Dear lord I hope we agree on this) it just seems that way. Therefore we can ignore it when attempting to find where something is actually located. As the sideview image does. It shows us the angle to the sun when it's setting, as that makes it vertically over a point about 6,000 miles away. What then has to be explained is how perspective accounts for, not only getting the sun 20 degrees closer to the ground, but how light is coming in at less than the actual angle it is above the horizontal. Again, unless you want to claim perspective is showing us where the sun actually is...somehow.

Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.

Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Perspective is not merely an "art concept". The horizon is seen in the real world; it's not purely artistic.
The horizon is a function of attempting to see a 3D world in 2D. Perspective and vanishing point are both artistic concepts to help do this in drawings. The 'exist' in the real world, but not in the same way. But how about you define them both for us then, hmm?
1) What is perspective?
2) What/where is the vanishing point?
3) What is the horizon?

Again, if perspective doesn't affect the actual position, the sideview model is perfectly fine to show us the location of the sun. You then have to show/explain how perspective adjusts the apparent location of the sun so that it can set, as well as give us light that comes in at less that it's true angle of 20 degrees.

There is nothing wrong with the side view!

Yes, there is something wrong. Under that side view model things would infinitely approach the horizon, but never touch it. The fact that a distant mountain can get above the level of the horizon line shows that the model is inaccurate in its assumptions and representations of reality.
This is complete babbling. The mountain shows nothing, as the mountain rises above the plane of the eye. You're focusing too much on this 'infinity' idea Tom. In reality something can and will get close enough that it will vanish far before infinity. But 20 degrees is NOT a negligible amount that meets the requirements for such a feat.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2017, 01:00:18 PM »
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.

The horizon is not represented in that size view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.

However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.

Maybe it is my confusion, but you seem to bounce back and forth between a real, physical change in the world and the more accurate optical illusion description of perspective. If you're looking out over a large body of water, there is a very clear horizon. It is caused by the curvature of the Earth. I can see it from my office. Very crisp, very clear. It is not at the limit of my vision at all.

The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2017, 01:04:21 PM »
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?

I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.

The diagram you posted seems to be a Round Earth model explanation for a horizon which we are not talking about.

The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.

The ground does rise to the horizon, overhead bodies like planes do descend to the horizon, and it is possible for the tops of mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2017, 01:08:32 PM »
The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.

The ground does rise, the sun does dip, and mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.

Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change? If the ground rises and the sun dips, how is the sun not hitting the Earth? Clearly the sun dips below the horizon. Tom, the ground APPEARS to rise, the sun APPEARS to dip. That is the illusion part of perspective. Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains. We should keep this conversation over a body of water which is the least altered horizon.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2017, 01:12:55 PM »
Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change?

Once again; perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, which is the determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Quote
Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.

Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to stick out of the horizon line. It is impossible for the mountain to even get to the horizon line.

This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 04:27:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2017, 01:13:32 PM »
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?

I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.

The diagram you posted seems to be a Round Earth model explanation for a horizon which we are not talking about.

Those are not different, they are both correct! It's exactly the same geometry, same angles, same light travelling in straight lines, applied in the same way.
If you use it on a round earth sideview, you can easily see how mountains can sit on the horizon.

The diagram of the OP doesn't represent a round earth, because it's the same geometry applied on a flat earth. We are trying to explain you how perspective works, because you are either clueless, or pulling our collective leg.

Let's try again with a different angle.
How does vision works?
 

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2017, 01:32:00 PM »
Quote
Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.

Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to get above the horizon line. It is impossible for anything on the ground to even get to the horizon line; let alone intersect it.

This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.
I'm gonna stop you right there Tom, because you are completely incorrect. Now stop pretending the model is saying things it doesn't. It ONLY talks about the actual position of the sun and it's relation to the observer. Since perspective doesn't affect the actual position of objects, perspective is irrelevant.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2017, 01:33:34 PM »
Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change?

Once again; perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, which is the determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Quote
Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.

Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to get above the horizon line. It is impossible for anything on the ground to even get to the horizon line; let alone intersect it.

This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.

So draw a mountain on it. The ground plane is actually irrelevant. If the ground doesn't physically rise, the only thing changing is the distance of the sun from the observer. (assuming the sun doesn't physically get any lower in the sky) You can create a triangle by drawing a line directly up 3k units from the observers eye, make a 90 degree turn and go out an arbitrary distance to the sun (6k units in this example), and then draw a straight line back to the observers eye. Draw the ground as a flat plane or slaps some mountains on it. (no more then 6 units!!) It doesn't matter. If the line from the sun to the observers eye is not blocked, the sun is above the horizon. Keeping the ground plane flat is for simplicity, not to model reality.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2017, 06:38:25 PM »
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

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 #33 on: September 22, 2017, 07:13:43 PM »
I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.

Thank you Tom - you just helped to disprove the flat earth!

In a FLAT earth - you're right, the peak of a mountain cannot ever be on the horizon...and my diagram elegantly demonstrates that.

In a ROUND earth - my diagram has to have a curved "ground" - and in that situation, the top of a mountain can indeed be on the horizon (or below it).

I do not claim my diagram proves that the earth is flat...to the contrary, it disproves it...which does not make it "wrong" - it makes it "right".

Quote
The ground does rise to the horizon, overhead bodies like planes do descend to the horizon, and it is possible for the tops of mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.

Your claim that "the ground rises to the horizon" is an oft-stated thing in FET - but it's not true.   If you fly a military fighter airplane with a heads-up-display, you see that the "artificial horizon" is considerably higher than the actual horizon at high altitudes - yet perfectly aligned with it at sea level.

Your personal *feeling* about the horizon (and that reported by some FE'er mountain climbers I saw someplace) is hard for you to demonstrate because you can't tell whether your head (or your camera) is horizontal when you take your observation.    We use the same root word for "Horizon" and "Horizontal" because at the normal altitude range over which humans live, you can hardly tell the difference.

Planes appear to approach the horizon due to perspective - but to disappear over it requires the Earth to be curved (which it is - and that's why that happens).

My model is NOT a representation of reality (in which the Earth is round) - it is, however a perfectly good representation of YOUR claims to the Flat Earth!  So your complaints about it are refuting your very own Flat Earth theory!

You see - if you dispute it on grounds that it doesn't match reality - but FAIL to dispute it's factual basis (ie where the sun is, and light traveling in straight lines) then what you're doing
is proving that a diagram of how light must travels on the flat earth is inconsistent with reality...ergo, the Earth Isn't Flat.

So thanks very much for helping out with the disproof of FET!
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 #34 on: September 22, 2017, 07:30:23 PM »
Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Yes - at infinity.

Quote
The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.
That's only a problem for your flat earth.  In a round earth, the railroad tracks curve over the horizon before they "meet".   God knows what they do on a flat earth....I guess they just disappear into the haze...I don't have to defend what happens in a flat earth model...and the FACT that it conflicts with reality is your problem.

Quote
Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.

Well, no - that model is correct - things "intersect the horizon" because of Earth curvature.

In a FLAT earth, you're right - a horizon should not exist.  You  only have to invoke this funky perspective thing BECAUSE you insist that the world is flat.

So to be clear:

* Your objections do not apply if the Earth is round...neither does my diagram.

* If the earth is flat then your objections to the diagram are entirely valid...and YOU need to explain to US what's wrong with it...because the only three assumptions it makes are:

   a) The earth is flat.
   b) Light travels in straight lines.
   c) The sun is a long way above the ground.

Because (as you VERY correctly say) the diagram doesn't agree with reality - then one of those three assumptions I made when I drew it must be incorrect.

It is my belief that (a) is incorrect.   You claim to believe that (a), (b) and (c) are all 100% correct...but then you complain that it doesn't agree with reality...YEAH!  THAT's WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU - AND NOW YOU AGREE!



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 #35 on: September 23, 2017, 03:39:46 AM »
That's been the true irony of this whole back and forth... Tom has been pointing out that the flat earth explanation for the way the sun sets does not and can not match observations. Just, over and over again, seemingly oblivious to it.

The crux of the argument is here:

Quote from: 3DGeek
* If the earth is flat then your objections to the diagram are entirely valid...and YOU need to explain to US what's wrong with it...because the only three assumptions it makes are:

   a) The earth is flat.
   b) Light travels in straight lines.
   c) The sun is a long way above the ground.

Because (as you VERY correctly say) the diagram doesn't agree with reality - then one of those three assumptions I made when I drew it must be incorrect.

There's still the '3rd person diagrams can't model it correctly' cop-out, so I thought of a 1st-person way to model a sunset on flat earth. I don't have a diagram, for lack of preparation and resources, but maybe one can be made or found.

+ Lie down at one end of an infinitely long, very tall hallway. The floor and ceiling are perfectly straight, forever.
+ Directly above your head is a light fixture on the ceiling, 10 meters high. The viewing angle is 90 degrees, straight up.
+ Every ten meters along the ceiling is another light, identical to the first. The viewing angle decreases for each light in proportion to its distance away.
+ What are the angles from your eyes to the light on the ceiling that are 30m, 300m, and 3 km away?
+ How far along the ceiling is the closest light for which the viewing angle is 0 degrees?

For those paying attention at home, you will notice that this is the same exercise as the sideways diagrams, no surprise. But answering these questions will be revealing; the proportions of the "3000 mile high, 6000 miles away" sunset are met at the light that is two steps away, 20m out and 10m up, twice as far as it is high; the viewing angle is 18 degrees. For reference, try this at home: Find a doorframe that has two door-height-lengths available on the floor in front of it. Lie down on your back, so your toes are the horizon facing towards the doorframe, and your head is at the 2:1 position. Look at the top of the door... huzzah, it's an 18 degree viewing angle!

[I double checked my math - it's actually 26 degrees]

Anyway... the angle for 300 meters is 2 degrees, and for 3000 it is 0.2 degrees. And because light travels in straight lines, these proportions remain true. 10 up, 3000 away... 1:300.

So on a flat earth, in order for the viewing angle from the ground to get within a fraction of a degree i.e. close to the horizon, given that the sun is 3000 miles high, it must then be 900,000 miles away. How far away is Baghdad from New York, again?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2017, 04:02:59 AM »
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

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.

Thank you Tom - you just helped to disprove the flat earth!

In a FLAT earth - you're right, the peak of a mountain cannot ever be on the horizon...and my diagram elegantly demonstrates that.

In a ROUND earth - my diagram has to have a curved "ground" - and in that situation, the top of a mountain can indeed be on the horizon (or below it).

I do not claim my diagram proves that the earth is flat...to the contrary, it disproves it...which does not make it "wrong" - it makes it "right".

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.

Quote from: 3DGeek
Your claim that "the ground rises to the horizon" is an oft-stated thing in FET - but it's not true.   If you fly a military fighter airplane with a heads-up-display, you see that the "artificial horizon" is considerably higher than the actual horizon at high altitudes - yet perfectly aligned with it at sea level.

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.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 04:17:24 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2017, 05:51:10 AM »
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

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.
Ah, but you see we're not attempting to make a model that fits the flat Earth. We're checking to see if the flat Earth can even exist in a way that reflects reality. What this is showing us is the impossibility of sunset on a flat Earth, as described by the viewing angles we know exist. We are NOT attempting to have this model FE. We are attempting to see if the Earth could even BE flat. If the reality doesn't match the number, there is no flat Earth. YOU have to show how perspective or the horizon, or what have you, makes up for the sun ACTUALLY being at a 20 degree angle when it should be at a zero degree angle.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2017, 06:12:12 AM »
Wrong. The flat earth logo itself shows an entire earth bathed in sunlight. Lets try this for a change. How big is the diameter of the earth? Answer approximately 8,000 miles. How big is sun's diameter? Approximately 1,000,000  miles. The earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun so by scientific measurements the sun cannot be a flashlight on the earth but must cover the earth entirely at the same time. If not there would be no seasons as the earth's axis, which is 23.5 off center. The flashlight shows that the little sun can only cover part of the earth at a time meaning the rest of the earth would be freezing. There would also be no need for time zones as the sun comes around and goes away without causing any temperature differentials. By the way where is Antarctica. It is a continent with a very large land mass that is weighted down by ice. Your logo and thought processes state that if we don't like it it doesn't exist. Laying down in a hallway is not laying down with the earth. If in fact the earth was flat everyone would see the same stars at the same time overnight forever. Why doesn't this happen? I leave you to figure out the last falsehood in your prehistoric reasoning.

devils advocate

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2017, 07:57:56 AM »
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.......