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: The burden of proof.
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2017, 08:30:59 PM »
We often see Flat Earthers' claiming that the burden of proof is on Round-Earthers to show that the Earth isn't flat.

I always find this to be an odd position to take - but it's interesting to read:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

...especially the first section about "Holder of the Burden".

Quote
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

I would say that the FE'ers are challenging the perceived status quo - but I can see that from their perspective, the status quo is their own belief system.

What I think happens here (again, quoting Wikipedia) is:

Quote
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim, which is known as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".

The following section "Shifting the burden of proof" is also interesting in this context:

Quote
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

This is precisely what goes wrong in FE debates.  The "burden of proof" should flip over to their side of the court when a logical argument is made against their proposition...but they don't accept it.

So the FE'ers will say "X is true and that (for us) is the status quo - so we don't have to prove it"...then the RE'ers say "Here is a disproof of X"...which in rational debate should flip the burden of proof over to the FE'ers.  But what happens is very often that they don't respond.  So RE'ers claim victory on grounds that the FE'ers failed to take up their burden and supply a counter-argument.

In a formal debate process, the proposed disproof of X flips the burden of proof over to the other side - and if the result is "No argument" then it's an RE victory...albeit a somewhat unsatisfying one.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2017, 08:54:43 PM »
I've been back browsing a LOT the past month (the forum is slow and I have too much free time) and I've found one just recently where someone proposed this. The general FE response seemed to boil down to "We've satisfied the burden of proof. Look out your window, the world looks flat. The onus is now on you to conclusively prove it is not, through observational/experimental evidence only."

The problem being, as I pointed out in my earlier thread that sits there with no replies, their FE 'proof' is actually rather lacking when one digs into it. Their main pillar (it *looks* flat) doesn't hold up all across the globe. The rest is essentially unsupported claims. I would argue that if RE presented the equivalent of ENaG, we'd be told it wasn't proof of a round Earth. Yet they seem to cling to it for some reason, despite it being no more 'zetetic' to do so, than to believe other sources.

As far as 'status quo is their own belief system' someone on the other forum summed that up the best (paraphrased, and I must admit to recently beginning to suspect troll, but no one else would argue it) when he said "The Earth is flat. Sunsets happen. Therefore sunsets are not impossible on a flat Earth." What does one say to that?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2017, 09:02:34 PM »
We often see Flat Earthers' claiming that the burden of proof is on Round-Earthers to show that the Earth isn't flat

....

I've merged this thread with a recent thread on the same topic.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2017, 09:07:45 PM »
I've been back browsing a LOT the past month (the forum is slow and I have too much free time) and I've found one just recently where someone proposed this. The general FE response seemed to boil down to "We've satisfied the burden of proof. Look out your window, the world looks flat. The onus is now on you to conclusively prove it is not, through observational/experimental evidence only."

The problem being, as I pointed out in my earlier thread that sits there with no replies, their FE 'proof' is actually rather lacking when one digs into it. Their main pillar (it *looks* flat) doesn't hold up all across the globe. The rest is essentially unsupported claims. I would argue that if RE presented the equivalent of ENaG, we'd be told it wasn't proof of a round Earth. Yet they seem to cling to it for some reason, despite it being no more 'zetetic' to do so, than to believe other sources.

As far as 'status quo is their own belief system' someone on the other forum summed that up the best (paraphrased, and I must admit to recently beginning to suspect troll, but no one else would argue it) when he said "The Earth is flat. Sunsets happen. Therefore sunsets are not impossible on a flat Earth." What does one say to that?

The idea that sunsets are not possible is based on an Ancient Greek theoretical model on how perspective lines should behave at long distances. The Ancient Greeks never actually demonstrated that parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch. No evidence has been provided for that perspective model.

The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 11:54:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

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: The burden of proof.
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2017, 09:11:12 PM »
I've been back browsing a LOT the past month (the forum is slow and I have too much free time) and I've found one just recently where someone proposed this. The general FE response seemed to boil down to "We've satisfied the burden of proof. Look out your window, the world looks flat. The onus is now on you to conclusively prove it is not, through observational/experimental evidence only."

The problem being, as I pointed out in my earlier thread that sits there with no replies, their FE 'proof' is actually rather lacking when one digs into it. Their main pillar (it *looks* flat) doesn't hold up all across the globe. The rest is essentially unsupported claims. I would argue that if RE presented the equivalent of ENaG, we'd be told it wasn't proof of a round Earth. Yet they seem to cling to it for some reason, despite it being no more 'zetetic' to do so, than to believe other sources.

As far as 'status quo is their own belief system' someone on the other forum summed that up the best (paraphrased, and I must admit to recently beginning to suspect troll, but no one else would argue it) when he said "The Earth is flat. Sunsets happen. Therefore sunsets are not impossible on a flat Earth." What does one say to that?

The idea that sunsets are not possible is based on an Ancient Greek theoretical model on how perspective lines should behave at long distances. The Ancient Greeks never actually demonstrated that parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity. No evidence has been provided for that.

The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.

If the ancient greeks were the ONLY ones to say this - then you'd (perhaps) have a point - but it's not like we just accepted what they said and never looked into it again.

The proof of "infinite vanishing point" perspective is inherent in the fact that light travels in straight lines.

There are plenty of other things the ancient greeks came up with (Pythagoras's theorem, Eulers theorems...you name it) that we've proven for ourselves and now accepted - and plenty of things we looked at carefully and rejected (the idea that all numbers are rational for example).

Just because it's "ancient greek" neither proves nor disproves anything.

I proved that the conventional laws of perspective are correct for you in my thread about pinhole cameras...but you didn't seem to understand it somehow.

This is why I keep banging on about you explaining how the photons get from sun to eye at sunset.   That removes "perspective" from the argument and simply requires us to agree on the straight-line path these tiny objects take through the atmosphere.

But you repeatedly defect on your offer to write about it simply - and just refer to your previous "8 pages" where you were still talking about perspective and never once mentioned the path the photons take.

Fact is - you don't answer because you can't - and you KNOW that you can't.   We've won...unless you can explain the path of the photons without using the word "perspective".

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

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2017, 09:12:22 PM »
I've been back browsing a LOT the past month (the forum is slow and I have too much free time) and I've found one just recently where someone proposed this. The general FE response seemed to boil down to "We've satisfied the burden of proof. Look out your window, the world looks flat. The onus is now on you to conclusively prove it is not, through observational/experimental evidence only."

The problem being, as I pointed out in my earlier thread that sits there with no replies, their FE 'proof' is actually rather lacking when one digs into it. Their main pillar (it *looks* flat) doesn't hold up all across the globe. The rest is essentially unsupported claims. I would argue that if RE presented the equivalent of ENaG, we'd be told it wasn't proof of a round Earth. Yet they seem to cling to it for some reason, despite it being no more 'zetetic' to do so, than to believe other sources.

As far as 'status quo is their own belief system' someone on the other forum summed that up the best (paraphrased, and I must admit to recently beginning to suspect troll, but no one else would argue it) when he said "The Earth is flat. Sunsets happen. Therefore sunsets are not impossible on a flat Earth." What does one say to that?

The idea that sunsets are not possible is based on an Ancient Greek theoretical model on how perspective lines should behave at long distances. The Ancient Greeks never actually demonstrated that parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity. No evidence has been provided for that model.

The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.
No, you are claiming (as you have been since day 1 on this subject) that math and equations that work for ALL TESTABLE DISTANCES suddenly break down past a certain distance for reasons. You have zero evidence for it, you have zero proof that it happens, you simply assume it must because the earth is flat and sunsets happen, therefore sunsets can happen on a flat Earth. I've shown you in another thread how the math for perspective works out properly for your railroad tracks.

The laws of sine, cosine, and tangent are empirical to all easily testable distances. It is on YOU to show where, how, and why they break down. Not just claim "Oh, you haven't tested it at these distances so obviously they don't work." This is how the burden of proof actually works.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2017, 11:53:12 PM »
No, you are claiming (as you have been since day 1 on this subject) that math and equations that work for ALL TESTABLE DISTANCES suddenly break down past a certain distance for reasons. You have zero evidence for it, you have zero proof that it happens, you simply assume it must because the earth is flat and sunsets happen, therefore sunsets can happen on a flat Earth. I've shown you in another thread how the math for perspective works out properly for your railroad tracks.

The laws of sine, cosine, and tangent are empirical to all easily testable distances. It is on YOU to show where, how, and why they break down. Not just claim "Oh, you haven't tested it at these distances so obviously they don't work." This is how the burden of proof actually works.

You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested. How does that make your argument strong?

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2017, 11:59:01 PM »
The argument is weak. You are using a non-empirical hypothesis to combat an empirical observation.

bro, get out of here with this 'weak' 'strong' 'combat' nonsense. you sound like a zealot

anyway here is the alpha and omega of empirical observation as it relates to the shape of the earth:
Quote from: Wikipedia
The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and navigation including GPS. It comprises a standard coordinate system for the Earth, a standard spheroidal reference surface (the datum or reference ellipsoid) for raw altitude data, and a gravitational equipotential surface (the geoid) that defines the nominal sea level.

https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceVideosHD/live

talk about perspective until the cows come home; it doesn't matter at all. the empirical evidence is against you

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2017, 12:04:33 AM »
also, what?

You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested.

this is made up from whole cloth! nothing in CS's comment remotely resembles anything like what you're spewing here

garbage tactics from a garbage debater

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2017, 01:02:14 AM »
also, what?

You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested.

this is made up from whole cloth! nothing in CS's comment remotely resembles anything like what you're spewing here

garbage tactics from a garbage debater

Please show us where anyone has demonstrated that the perspective lines will infinitely approach each other but never touch. If you cannot do that then the idea is little more than an unsupported hypothesis.

Curious Squirrel has given us an unsupported hypothesis and has asserted that it proves an empirical observation wrong.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2017, 01:35:55 AM »
okay, you made that incorrect point before. I'm writing to this:

 * CuriousSquirrel writes a thing
 * You claim he admits the Greeks never proved their geometry
 * He did not admit anything of the sort, be it tacitly, implicitly, or otherwise
 * garbage & you = 1 & 1 = 2

also, I and others have in past threads already demonstrated empirically the laws of perspective, as predicted by and defined by Ancient Greek philosophers. having done that, your whining is best described as Denialism.

and this is the perfect thread to bring this up! I don't even have to link anything; I have a post earlier in this very thread about how people who argue that the Earth is flat refuse to agree on a standard of evidence! if you agreed with us about anything with regards to how perspective actually works, it would be tantamount to conceding the entire argument. the only recourse is denial.

see also: space travel, and the denial thereof

plus, I guess it's on point and somewhat hysterical that you ignored the post I made in the middle of all this, that linked to actual evidence. more fun to flame each other, I suppose, than call it a wash

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2017, 04:50:20 AM »

Please show us where anyone has demonstrated that the perspective lines will infinitely approach each other but never touch. If you cannot do that then the idea is little more than an unsupported hypothesis.

Curious Squirrel has given us an unsupported hypothesis and has asserted that it proves an empirical observation wrong.
Sure Tom, let's go measure something at infinite distance. Anyone see a problem with that?

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2017, 05:36:09 AM »
also, what?

You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested.

this is made up from whole cloth! nothing in CS's comment remotely resembles anything like what you're spewing here

garbage tactics from a garbage debater

Please show us where anyone has demonstrated that the perspective lines will infinitely approach each other but never touch. If you cannot do that then the idea is little more than an unsupported hypothesis.

Curious Squirrel has given us an unsupported hypothesis and has asserted that it proves an empirical observation wrong.
Gonna stop you there. We know and can show where and why *perspective* lines meet. I've done this in another thread. Perspective lines =\= parallel lines. Stop talking like they are. Parallel lines will never meet. Perspective lines is a nonsense phrase. Two parallel lines will appear to meet due to the angular limit of our eyes at a measurable and predictable distance. They do not actually meet. The math says parallel lines will never meet (and indeed that's the very definition of the phrase) but perspective will show them getting closer as the relative angle between them decreases, and eventually allow them to appear to touch as our eye can no longer distinguish one line from the other. We know and can predict where this occurs.

For the FE sun, the math that works at any testable distance you care to name, predicts the sun to be well above the angle required for it to vanish due to our eyes angular limit. You must show that either the math stops working at those distances, show that something is wrong about our understanding of the eye, or admit the Earth cannot be flat. Those are the options open to you. I'm not sure how I can put it any plainer. Do you need me to put together some geometry homework for you, so you can see for yourself that the laws of sine, cosine, and tangent work in the real world as well as on paper? Or are you able to trust my word and those of the rest of us on this forum?

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: The burden of proof.
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2017, 01:28:08 PM »
Well, we can continually allow Tom to babble on about perspective lines (which ONLY an artifact of focussing systems!) or we can talk like big boys in the 21st century and consider the photons.

If you take a large sheet of paper - or a big flat white-painted wall - let the sun shine onto it - can you see the sun as a big circle on the paper/wall?

No - you can't - and the reason is that the light isn't being focussed.



So in the image above, light rays from various parts of the sun are going off in every direction - the red lines from the top of the sun, the green lines from the center and the blue lines from the bottom go every which way - and no image appears.

So to form an image - you need some kind of device that focusses the light - it can be a lens or a curved mirror - or it can be a simple pinhole.   Pinhole cameras work very well, they can photograph sunsets, they exhibit perspective and they are by far the simplest devices to discuss.   So if we put a pinhole between the light source and the paper - we can exclude all of the light rays that are not going to help in forming an image:



..and now we have an image.  And the lines I've drawn for "light rays" are also the paths of the photons...wave/particle duality and all of that.

"Perspective" can only emerge when we make an image - you can't talk about parallel lines meeting without talking about some kind of an imaging device.   We know that the big lumps of steel that make up the rails on which trains run do not LITERALLY touch - that's something any child knows.   They only APPEAR to touch (or perhaps come close to touching as I would argue) in images.

Without an imaging device, we cannot talk about perspective.

So there are two ways you can take this conversation:

1) We can continue to talk about "perspective" - but we have to ALWAYS remember that this conversation means nothing without including some kind of imaging device in our discussions.

2) We can forget about imaging devices - and stop talking about perspective and simply discuss how photons get from here to there.

I prefer the latter because it's simpler to understand - but I'm sufficiently knowlegeable and confident about my subject matter (being a 3D graphics expert...as my user-name implies) to discuss it from either debate position.

What you CANNOT DO - is to mix the two explanations as you feel like to make your argument work.   You can't start off talking about the paths of free photons - and then flip into talking about perspective without first introducing a focussing device which has selectively cut out many of those free paths.

So - if you wish to continue to talk about perspective - and the PROOF that the "vanishing point" is at infinity - then may I refer you to this diagram from a previous thread:



...which allows one to use the pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles, to establish the relationship between distance in the real world (Hsubject) and distance on the image (Himage) as:   Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject.   This is the essence of perspective.  As the distance to the subject increases (Dsubject gets bigger) then Himage gets smaller.  At what point does the sun reach the horizon?  Well, that's when Himage is zero - and for that to be true then mathematically, one of three conditions must apply:

1) Dimage must be zero...but that would describe a zero-sized camera - which couldn't make an image of anything because ALL distances on the image would be zero and it could only take zero sized photographs!
2) Hsubject must be zero...which would mean that the sun was PHYSICALLY touching the ground - which would start fires in cities at noon!
3) Dsubject must be INFINITE...which is what really happens.

Since Dsubject being infinite is the ONLY solution to the pinhole camera experiment that get the sun to the horizon in a flat earth - you're going to have to admit that the vanishing point is at infinity.

That's the ONLY way that light can travel in straight lines through a pinhole camera and make an image of the sun at the horizon.  The sun would have to be INFINITELY far away.

And by the way - we see the sun sink BELOW the horizon - and there are no sane values of Dimage, Dsubject or Hsubject that allow that to happen.

OK - so that's where your argument fails if you talk about focussed images...like what you see with your eye.   This line of discussion produces an EQUATION for the height of the sun on a focussed image - and that proves that (a) the vanishing point is infinitely far away and (b) that there cannot be flat earth sunsets and therefore (c) the Earth is round.

HOWEVER:

You can also choose to ignore the entire concept of a focussed image - and just look at the path the photons must be taking to get from the sun, through the branches of a tree on the horizon and into my eye:



In this diagram, the blue line is the straight line path that the photons MUST be taking to get from the sun to my eyes...and the pink line is the line that they'd have to take if the sun was really on the horizon.   Since we agree that photons travel in straight lines, the pink line cannot be the correct one.

Hence flat earth sunrises and sunsets cannot happen - and the Earth is round.

So either way - there is not getting out of this trap.

Tom - it's time for you to give this one up.  None of the other FE'ers are coming to your rescue here.

At this point you either have to admit that the Earth is round - or drop your claim for photons travelling in straight lines...which essentially means a return to the Electromagnetic Accelerator idea...which does actually fix this problem.   If light bends into a curve (as the EA theory claims) - then the photons can drop nearly vertically downwards from the sun in a gentle curve that skims the horizon and touches my eyes.

With EA - you can have sunsets on a flat earth - but you have to give up photons travelling in straight lines - and that's a BIG problem as I can prove if you do indeed return to that argument.

But magic perspective doesn't work...it fails the test of Euclidean geometry.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 888
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2017, 03:00:45 PM »
also, what?

You now appear to be admitting that the perspective concepts of the Ancient Greeks have never been tested.

this is made up from whole cloth! nothing in CS's comment remotely resembles anything like what you're spewing here

garbage tactics from a garbage debater

Please show us where anyone has demonstrated that the perspective lines will infinitely approach each other but never touch. If you cannot do that then the idea is little more than an unsupported hypothesis.

Curious Squirrel has given us an unsupported hypothesis and has asserted that it proves an empirical observation wrong.

Please show us any evidence that there are things called perspective lines.   It makes no sense.   Perspective is a phenomenon of the eye, not physics or math.

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

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2017, 03:20:14 PM »
That is an incorrect interpretation of burden of proof, in this case.

The Flat Earth Society claims the Earth is flat. I and others come to post on the forums to dispute that claim.

Yes. And we tell you to look out your window, which is evidence of that claim, and you then proceed to throw a fit, unable to actually justify your beliefs further.
But it's not. You have yet to present actual, verifiable evidence that cannot possibly be for anything but a flat Earth. None, zero, zilch, nada.

False.

How does this work, let me try it: "Please refrain from low information posts on the upper fora."

Did I do that right?

But seriously - I post pictures of clouds showing the shadow of the earth. I ask questions about latitude and longitude or the Eratosthenes experiment. I link to things I want to discuss.

It's all very frustrating to do all this work and have people just come along and say "False" and not even bother to give a single example.

I do have to say I appreciate Tom Bishop, he actually engages in thoughtful conversations. We've had discussions of perspective and apparent angular movement that are actually interesting, and have spawned several possible experiment ideas. If I ever get around to them I'll be back to discuss with him because he actually engages.

But if you're just going to say "False" and not even link to anything helpful then you might as well stay silent.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2017, 04:03:50 PM »
How does this work, let me try it: "Please refrain from low information posts on the upper fora."

Did I do that right?
No, you did not do it right. It isn't low-content when it is a complete and truthful answer. I hope I was able to clear that up for you.


But if you're just going to say "False" and not even link to anything helpful then you might as well stay silent.
No, that is okay. I will continue to point out false claims as I see fit.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2017, 06:47:00 PM »
You can also choose to ignore the entire concept of a focussed image - and just look at the path the photons must be taking to get from the sun, through the branches of a tree on the horizon and into my eye:



In this diagram, the blue line is the straight line path that the photons MUST be taking to get from the sun to my eyes...and the pink line is the line that they'd have to take if the sun was really on the horizon.   Since we agree that photons travel in straight lines, the pink line cannot be the correct one.

Hence flat earth sunrises and sunsets cannot happen - and the Earth is round.

So either way - there is not getting out of this trap.

Tom - it's time for you to give this one up.  None of the other FE'ers are coming to your rescue here.

At this point you either have to admit that the Earth is round - or drop your claim for photons travelling in straight lines...which essentially means a return to the Electromagnetic Accelerator idea...which does actually fix this problem.   If light bends into a curve (as the EA theory claims) - then the photons can drop nearly vertically downwards from the sun in a gentle curve that skims the horizon and touches my eyes.

With EA - you can have sunsets on a flat earth - but you have to give up photons travelling in straight lines - and that's a BIG problem as I can prove if you do indeed return to that argument.

But magic perspective doesn't work...it fails the test of Euclidean geometry.

And where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?

If they do touch at some distance, then your diagram will look a whole lot different. The fundamental premise of this continuous universe model needs empirical evidence behind it -- things to suggest that is how it is in the real world. It is only backed by math which assumes a hypothetical model, and this is wholly insufficient.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 06:49:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #38 on: October 31, 2017, 06:49:17 PM »
You can also choose to ignore the entire concept of a focussed image - and just look at the path the photons must be taking to get from the sun, through the branches of a tree on the horizon and into my eye:



In this diagram, the blue line is the straight line path that the photons MUST be taking to get from the sun to my eyes...and the pink line is the line that they'd have to take if the sun was really on the horizon.   Since we agree that photons travel in straight lines, the pink line cannot be the correct one.

Hence flat earth sunrises and sunsets cannot happen - and the Earth is round.

So either way - there is not getting out of this trap.

Tom - it's time for you to give this one up.  None of the other FE'ers are coming to your rescue here.

At this point you either have to admit that the Earth is round - or drop your claim for photons travelling in straight lines...which essentially means a return to the Electromagnetic Accelerator idea...which does actually fix this problem.   If light bends into a curve (as the EA theory claims) - then the photons can drop nearly vertically downwards from the sun in a gentle curve that skims the horizon and touches my eyes.

With EA - you can have sunsets on a flat earth - but you have to give up photons travelling in straight lines - and that's a BIG problem as I can prove if you do indeed return to that argument.

But magic perspective doesn't work...it fails the test of Euclidean geometry.

And where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as predicted by that ancient greek model?

I think the burden of proof is on you, good sir. You are claiming that they will eventually touch. Have you ever seen this or have evidence. This is really silly though. A car will look smaller and smaller as it travels away from us, yet we know that is merely optics and the resolving power of the human eye. The car never changes size. (much to the delight of it's occupants)
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #39 on: October 31, 2017, 07:01:02 PM »
I think the burden of proof is on you, good sir. You are claiming that they will eventually touch. Have you ever seen this or have evidence.

Railroad tracks will seem to touch at the horizon, and the fact that things are able touch the horizon at all demonstrates that the perspective lines appear to merge. Under the Elucid model it should be impossible for any body to ever get to the horizon.

Empirical observation vs. ancient mathematical hypothesis. You need to show that it is all an illusion. Go.