Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #60 on: November 01, 2017, 05:46:21 PM »

Perspective changes the orientation angle of railroad tracks below your feet and brings them up to the level of your eye. It has caused the railroad tracks to be at the level of your eye when the railroad tracks are only a couple of inches from the ground: A clear example of change of orientation.

...

We see that railroad tracks meet at the horizon. What kind of real world evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?

Quote
Your parallel lines will never touch though. They will seem to touch because of the angular limit of the eye

Do you have any evidence for that? The railroad tracks also meet in a wide angle lens, or even with lens-less cameras.

The track appear to converge. Tom, do you think the railroad tracks actually meet?

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #61 on: November 01, 2017, 06:07:28 PM »
Tom, I guess my question is, what are you getting at? Yes, if you move around a scene, the orientation, relative to you, changes. It is important to note that nothing except your position has changed.

I'm guessing your trying to build a base for the whole setting sun thing, but, by your own examples, that doesn't work. Just like train tracks moving together, the sun, if you were correct, would have to get noticeably smaller and that just doesn't happen.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #62 on: November 01, 2017, 08:48:37 PM »
The simple proposal here - to advance the discussion - is to dispose of images and projections and simply talk about the paths of light rays in the REAL WORLD.

So here's the scenario - let me paint a pretty picture for a moment.  This is all about the ACTUAL locations of things...nothing else.



I'm facing towards the sunset - with my eyes closed - blindfolded.  We've banned all cameras, telescopes, pinholes, lenses and microscopes from the scene to avoid any risk of perspective entering into the discussion.

It's a cool fall day with a clear sky but the sun is hot.  But there is a *big* mountain on the western horizon - it's six miles away and it's HUGE!  It's a MILE HIGH and the sun is setting behind it.  We know that in some distant city off to the west (which we're going to say is 6,000 miles away for the sake of keeping the math easy) the sun is vertically overhead - and Flat Earthers tell me it's 3,000 miles up in the sky and the Earth is FLAT.

I should be standing in the shadow of the mountain.   The mountain is clearly blocking 100% of light from the sun...I don't feel the sun's warmth on my face at all.  We should all be able to agree on that.  If I cheated and peeked out from under my blindfold, I'd see it had set - but I'm not going to  cheat.

Let's follow one of the photons coming out of the sun.  Remember - we're not talking about images AT ALL - all eyes are blindfolded - all cameras are banned - there is just me, the mountain and the sun.  This is just about where the photon goes in reality...just like where the train goes down the train tracks IN REALITY.

The photon starts out at 3,000 miles up and 6,000 miles away from my head at noon in some remote place - then, (as we agree) it travels in a straight line:

Simple geometry of straight lines says:

* Halfway to my head - the photon would be 1,500 miles up and 3,000 miles away.
* 90% of the way it would be 300 miles up and 600 miles away.
* 99% of the way it would be 30 miles up and 60 miles away
* 99.9% of the way - it would be 3 miles up and 6 miles away. <==== REMEMBER THIS!
* ...and then it's 3 feet above my head and 6 feet away.
* ...and finally, it's zero feet above my head and zero feet away.  The photon hits my skin and gives up it's tiny packet of energy - and along with the trillions of others that followed the same route - it warms my face most pleasantly.

That's what the straight line path of the photon from the sun to my head is.

If the horizon was 6 miles away - and the photon crossed the horizon at an altitude of 3 miles - and COMPLETELY MISSED the mile high mountain!

But hold on a moment!  Didn't the sun just set behind the mountain?   I should be in it's shadow...but somehow I'm not!  I'm feeling the sun's rays on my face!

Since we just established that the photon missed the mountain on the horizon COMPLETELY...and not by a little bit - it zoomed over it at a height of 3 miles...how is this happening?

Finally - having established that I CAN feel the heat of the sun...I take off the blindfold - Tom tells us that the sun is CLEARLY behind the mountain - I'm standing in shadow - but I can still feel the sun's rays warming my face?   Eh?!  What the heck?

This is impossible - but that's what this Flat Earth hypothesis is saying must be happening.

So - even without images - without eyes or anything that could remotely have ANYTHING to do with perspective...the sun should not be able to be blocked by the mountain and therefore didn't "set".

How on EARTH are you going to get around THAT one Tom?

(And just in case you're thinking of saying that heat travels in other ways - I sneakily had a photo-cell taped to my forehead the whole time - and that confirms that there is (or is not) sunlight shining onto it).
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 09:06:53 PM by 3DGeek »
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 #63 on: November 01, 2017, 09:09:06 PM »
The simple proposal here - to advance the discussion - is to dispose of images and projections and simply talk about the paths of light rays in the REAL WORLD.

So here's the scenario - let me paint a pretty picture for a moment.  This is all about the ACTUAL locations of things...nothing else.

I'm facing towards the sunset - with my eyes closed - blindfolded.  We've banned all cameras, telescopes, pinholes, lenses and microscopes from the scene to avoid any risk of perspective entering into the discussion.

It's a cool fall day with a clear sky but the sun is hot.  But there is a *big* mountain on the western horizon - it's six miles away and it's HUGE!  It's a MILE HIGH and the sun is setting behind it.  We know that in some distant city off to the west (which we're going to say is 6,000 miles away for the sake of keeping the math easy) the sun is vertically overhead - and Flat Earthers tell me it's 3,000 miles up in the sky and the Earth is FLAT.

I should be standing in the shadow of the mountain.   The mountain is clearly blocking 100% of light from the sun...I don't feel the sun's warmth on my face at all.  We should all be able to agree on that.  If I cheated and peeked out from under my blindfold, I'd see it had set - but I'm not going to  cheat.

Let's follow one of the photons coming out of the sun.  Remember - we're not talking about images AT ALL - all eyes are blindfolded - all cameras are banned - there is just me, the mountain and the sun.  This is just about where the photon goes in reality...just like where the train goes down the train tracks IN REALITY.

The photon starts out at 3,000 miles up and 6,000 miles away from my head at noon in some remote place - then, (as we agree) it travels in a straight line:

Simple geometry of straight lines says:

* Halfway to my head - the photon would be 1,500 miles up and 3,000 miles away.
* 90% of the way it would be 300 miles up and 600 miles away.
* 99% of the way it would be 30 miles up and 60 miles away
* 99.9% of the way - it would be 3 miles up and 6 miles away. <==== REMEMBER THIS!
* ...and then it's 3 feet above my head and 6 feet away.
* ...and finally, it's zero feet above my head and zero feet away.  The photon hits my skin and gives up it's tiny packet of energy - and along with the trillions of others that followed the same route - it warms my face most pleasantly.

That's what the straight line path of the photon from the sun to my head is.

If the horizon was 6 miles away - and the photon crossed the horizon at an altitude of 3 miles - and COMPLETELY MISSED the mile high mountain!

But hold on a moment!  Didn't the sun just set behind the mountain?   I should be in it's shadow...but somehow I'm not!  I'm feeling the sun's rays on my face!

Since we just established that the photon missed the mountain on the horizon COMPLETELY...and not by a little bit - it zoomed over it at a height of 3 miles...how is this happening?

I take off the blindfold - the sun is CLEARLY behind the mountain - but I can still feel it's rays warming my face?

This is impossible - by that's what this Flat Earth hypothesis is saying must be happening.

So - even without images - without eyes or anything that could remotely have ANYTHING to do with perspective...the sun should not be able to be blocked by the mountain and therefore didn't "set".

How on EARTH are you going to get around THAT one Tom?
Oh, I know this one. His diagram in the other thread explains it clearly. He thinks perspective is an intrinsic property of the world that everything is affected by.

This is my theory at this point on Tom's position (if I'm wrong I would of course love for him to explain precisely where/how): All objects experience perspective. It's a natural law/property of the universe. As such, Euclid's "infinite universe" doesn't exist because lines meet at a distance before infinity for ALL objects perspective lines. As well, only your personal experience is relevant. For all intents and purposes "out of sight, out of mind" applies to objects in 'your' universe too. This explains how the sunset happens every day, because from the Suns PoV you have vanished due to perspective.

How'd I do? Please tell me you need to correct some things in here, because some parts are a little crazy on purpose.

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 #64 on: November 01, 2017, 09:25:39 PM »
Oh, I know this one. His diagram in the other thread explains it clearly. He thinks perspective is an intrinsic property of the world that everything is affected by.

This is my theory at this point on Tom's position (if I'm wrong I would of course love for him to explain precisely where/how): All objects experience perspective. It's a natural law/property of the universe. As such, Euclid's "infinite universe" doesn't exist because lines meet at a distance before infinity for ALL objects perspective lines. As well, only your personal experience is relevant. For all intents and purposes "out of sight, out of mind" applies to objects in 'your' universe too. This explains how the sunset happens every day, because from the Suns PoV you have vanished due to perspective.

How'd I do? Please tell me you need to correct some things in here, because some parts are a little crazy on purpose.

A little further up this thread, Tom said:

Quote
Perspective is how the world shows itself to us, and is dependant on the observer.

We can remove the observer from my example above and simply stick a photocell onto a pole in the ground - then there is STILL a problem with FE sunsets. 

If Tom can't accept that I've eliminated all trace of perspective from the debate - then this is tacit admission (as I've maintained all along) that "Perspective" is simply a code-word meaning "Magic".   He's already denied that mathematics, geometry and diagrams "work".  God alone knows what other crazy stuff we can provoke him into saying. It's becoming a new game for me!  "How much of obvious reality can we get Tom to deny?"
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 #65 on: November 01, 2017, 09:30:08 PM »
Oh, I know this one. His diagram in the other thread explains it clearly. He thinks perspective is an intrinsic property of the world that everything is affected by.

This is my theory at this point on Tom's position (if I'm wrong I would of course love for him to explain precisely where/how): All objects experience perspective. It's a natural law/property of the universe. As such, Euclid's "infinite universe" doesn't exist because lines meet at a distance before infinity for ALL objects perspective lines. As well, only your personal experience is relevant. For all intents and purposes "out of sight, out of mind" applies to objects in 'your' universe too. This explains how the sunset happens every day, because from the Suns PoV you have vanished due to perspective.

How'd I do? Please tell me you need to correct some things in here, because some parts are a little crazy on purpose.

A little further up this thread, Tom said:

Quote
Perspective is how the world shows itself to us, and is dependant on the observer.

We can remove the observer from my example above and simply stick a photocell onto a pole in the ground - then there is STILL a problem with FE sunsets. 

If Tom can't accept that I've eliminated all trace of perspective from the debate - then this is tacit admission (as I've maintained all along) that "Perspective" is simply a code-word meaning "Magic".   He's already denied that mathematics, geometry and diagrams "work".  God alone knows what other crazy stuff we can provoke him into saying. It's becoming a new game for me!  "How much of obvious reality can we get Tom to deny?"

That's the thing your skipping over. *Everything* is an observer in Tom's "model". Your shirt, the sun, the moon. Everything. At least from my understanding.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #66 on: November 01, 2017, 09:49:04 PM »
Quote from: xenotolerance
Tom likes to say that Euclid's ideas are hypothetical: They are not.

Where is the real world evidence for these infinitely-approaching perspective lines, then?

Given that 'infinitely-approaching perspective lines' is a phrase you are using to make actual perspective sound spooky and weird, I'm gonna call bullshit on you right there. This argument is a circular rabbit hole, seemingly created solely to derail threads. This thread is about burden of proof anyway, not perspective.

focus boiz

Quote from: me
Or, in brief: Yes, the burden of proof is on the claimant... and in this case, the claimant is you. Imagine a parable...

A chancellor of the court announces that given new observations, it is conclusive that water is less dense than air! A courtier says that it obviously is not. The chancellor says, "When you come to this court and start making claims, I expect that you work to demonstrate your claims."

you gonna throw around ideas like the space travel conspiracy, like universal acceleration, like stellar gears, and pretend like it's our job to prove Euclid? bitch, your brain is backwards.

And, by the way, there exists easily accessible proof that the Earth is a sphere. If you want to say otherwise, you have to prove that space travel is fake - not the other way around, where you presume the Earth is flat therefore space travel must be faked.

so yeah, all of this junk about perspective is missing the point anyway. get busy proving your conspiracy theory, or get busy shutting the fuck up

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #67 on: November 01, 2017, 10:04:59 PM »
oh yeah also

What you have is MATH. What I have is empirical observation. Your math only works under the model it is intended for. If the assumptions of the underlying model changes, or is wrong, the math does not work.

2 + 2 = 4 relies on the underlying model, and is not a universal truth. Under some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4. See Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

All math relies on the underlying model for it to have truth. You need to prove that your underlying model for perspective lines is valid.

the writer is a psychology PhD, explaining that 40 on a given test scale for, say, hydrophobia, is not necessarily twice as hydrophobic as a 20 is. This has literally nothing to do with the truth or validity of mathematics. More to the point, it it utterly irrelevant to Euclid's geometry, parallel lines, and perspective.

Here is an excellent paper on the universality of 2 + 2 = 4.
Quote
I admit, I cannot conceive of a "situation" that would make 2 + 2 = 4 false.  (There are redefinitions, but those are not "situations", and then you're no longer talking about 2, 4, =, or +.)  But that doesn't make my belief unconditional.  I find it quite easy to imagine a situation which would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3.

Suppose I got up one morning, and took out two earplugs, and set them down next to two other earplugs on my nighttable, and noticed that there were now three earplugs, without any earplugs having appeared or disappeared—in contrast to my stored memory that 2 + 2 was supposed to equal 4.  Moreover, when I visualized the process in my own mind, it seemed that making XX and XX come out to XXXX required an extra X to appear from nowhere, and was, moreover, inconsistent with other arithmetic I visualized, since subtracting XX from XXX left XX, but subtracting XX from XXXX left XXX.  This would conflict with my stored memory that 3 - 2 = 1, but memory would be absurd in the face of physical and mental confirmation that XXX - XX = XX.
...
What would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3, in other words, is exactly the same kind of evidence that currently convinces me that 2 + 2 = 4:  The evidential crossfire of physical observation, mental visualization, and social agreement.

anyway

None of us need to prove that our underlying model for perspective lines is anything. You have to prove that NASA has a conspiracy. get fucken started already

////

editing to add:

Tom has made quite a reversal!

in this thread:

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.

sidenote, Tom uses the 'infinite distance' strawman too much. we don't need to discuss infinite distance, just similar triangles with a longest side of 6000 miles.

from the vanishing point thread:

The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality.

compare to a thread from April of this year:

What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.
That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?
Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?

Clearly not!

We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.

So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved?  ???

flip-flops confirmed. Tom has changed his tune to suit the convenience of his argument at the time. I guess now, instead of quoting wikipedia when writing about perspective, I can just refer Tom to his own dang self.

whups

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #68 on: November 02, 2017, 09:25:34 PM »
The earth is round and if anyone thinks otherwise they need to see a doctor to check for something.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #69 on: November 02, 2017, 09:34:15 PM »
The earth is round and if anyone thinks otherwise they need to see a doctor to check for something.

Excellent argument.

Also, please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. If you need further help, please check the rules. Warned.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #70 on: November 02, 2017, 10:47:09 PM »
Hopefully this is a quick aside, but I am interested in responding to our newest contributor.

we know that smart people can disagree about important stuff, and that smart people can have huge blind spots and holes in their understanding. it is a mistake to assume that someone who thinks the Earth is flat has something wrong with them regarding intelligence or anything else, and it's insulting to so demean them. I did recently tell Tom Bishop he was stupid, so I am not above this behavior in general, though it was not in reference to his belief that the Earth is flat.

because the shape of the Earth is so painfully obviously round, and because it feels so painfully obvious to our hosts that it is actually flat, there is not a lot of fertile ground for debate. it's similar in nature to religious debates: there's just nothing to agree on, and everything is high stakes, and no one gains or gives any ground on the basic questions. but the person on the other side of the table from you is still a human being capable of thought and reason, be they Guest or John Davis. They think they're right about the shape of the Earth, and also that they're smart. I don't think I'm smarter, and I don't think they're not smart. I just think I'm less wrong.

I don't expect to change anybody's mind. That's not how minds work. If you think the Earth is flat, I can't do anything about that and neither can anyone else. Just time and good information have any chance of bringing you around. In the meantime, I'm having fun, so I'll keep this up as long as that remains the case.

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #71 on: November 02, 2017, 11:16:53 PM »
to be honest im just trying to get banned

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #72 on: November 02, 2017, 11:33:31 PM »
to be honest im just trying to get banned

2nd warning.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #73 on: November 05, 2017, 07:37:31 AM »
*Everything* is an observer in Tom's "model". Your shirt, the sun, the moon. Everything. At least from my understanding.

I think this is correct:

The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.



At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.

Anything that sets behind the horizon must "be an observer" in order for Tom's theory to hold up. Ships, trees, etc. I haven't done the math, but I think putting a third observer in this model would predict that the world would appear super curvy and wonky to everyone all the time. If the horizon rises to the eye because we can only see some finite distance [Rowbotham], space would basically appear to warp at that distance. But it doesn't, because the horizon does not rise to the eye, and the only reason people say it does is because Rowbotham said it does because he was a fucking hack.

'Perspective' is not about light or lines at all, as Tom references it. The whole belief is built on denialism. There is no need for completeness: The flat Earth model has no prediction or explanation for why constellations (e.g. Orion) visible in either hemisphere during its summer. There is no need for consistency: The flat Earth skepticism known as zeteticism makes no provision for asserting conjecture (e.g. celestial gravitation) or conspiracy theories without personally observing the evidence. There is no need for correctness: The flat Earth believers we meet here have no care whatsoever for accuracy or rigor.

How high is the the sun above the Earth? Eratosthenes shows a height of 3000 miles. How big is the Earth? Eratosthenes showed a circumference of 25000 miles. It does not matter that these come from the same experiment; you get one or the other, but not both, but our resident zetetics have referenced both. It does not matter that repeated trials of the Bedford Level Experiment showed curvature of the Earth. It does not matter that triangulation makes calculating distances and heights trivial. It does not matter that airlines monitor fuel consumption carefully and know their engine efficiency to precision. It definitely doesn't matter that Tom Bishop said he would accept a spherical map of the Earth built from airline data as proof of a round Earth, then two such proofs were presented, and he was reduced to claiming that no one knows the distance between New York and Paris in avoidance of the truth.

These things don't matter because it's not about proof; but it's not just about faith without proof. There is no proof that God exists, but people believe all the same; there isn't exactly proof that God doesn't exist, either. There is an ages-old debate about who has burden of proof in that argument. Regarding the shape of the Earth; it is observed, measured, catalogued, and demonstrated seventeen ways from Sunday that the Earth is a motherfuckin' globe. So much so that most people don't give it much thought, it's just common knowledge, in the same way that 'car engines work using gasoline' is common knowledge, but few people are mechanics who know how it actually works. 'The Earth is a globe' is common knowledge but not a lot of people understand gravity, general relativity, optics, and geodesy, just to name a couple of relevant subjects. All the evidence is there, proof of the Earth's spherical shape, so believing in flat Earth means denying that evidence.

Refusing to accept burden of proof is only one more act of denial.

Prove the space travel conspiracy, or accept photographic evidence of Earth's shape taken from space.

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 #74 on: November 06, 2017, 03:35:16 AM »
*Everything* is an observer in Tom's "model". Your shirt, the sun, the moon. Everything. At least from my understanding.

I think this is correct:

The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.



At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.

Anything that sets behind the horizon must "be an observer" in order for Tom's theory to hold up. Ships, trees, etc. I haven't done the math, but I think putting a third observer in this model would predict that the world would appear super curvy and wonky to everyone all the time. If the horizon rises to the eye because we can only see some finite distance [Rowbotham], space would basically appear to warp at that distance. But it doesn't, because the horizon does not rise to the eye, and the only reason people say it does is because Rowbotham said it does because he was a fucking hack.

'Perspective' is not about light or lines at all, as Tom references it. The whole belief is built on denialism. There is no need for completeness: The flat Earth model has no prediction or explanation for why constellations (e.g. Orion) visible in either hemisphere during its summer. There is no need for consistency: The flat Earth skepticism known as zeteticism makes no provision for asserting conjecture (e.g. celestial gravitation) or conspiracy theories without personally observing the evidence. There is no need for correctness: The flat Earth believers we meet here have no care whatsoever for accuracy or rigor.

How high is the the sun above the Earth? Eratosthenes shows a height of 3000 miles. How big is the Earth? Eratosthenes showed a circumference of 25000 miles. It does not matter that these come from the same experiment; you get one or the other, but not both, but our resident zetetics have referenced both. It does not matter that repeated trials of the Bedford Level Experiment showed curvature of the Earth. It does not matter that triangulation makes calculating distances and heights trivial. It does not matter that airlines monitor fuel consumption carefully and know their engine efficiency to precision. It definitely doesn't matter that Tom Bishop said he would accept a spherical map of the Earth built from airline data as proof of a round Earth, then two such proofs were presented, and he was reduced to claiming that no one knows the distance between New York and Paris in avoidance of the truth.

These things don't matter because it's not about proof; but it's not just about faith without proof. There is no proof that God exists, but people believe all the same; there isn't exactly proof that God doesn't exist, either. There is an ages-old debate about who has burden of proof in that argument. Regarding the shape of the Earth; it is observed, measured, catalogued, and demonstrated seventeen ways from Sunday that the Earth is a motherfuckin' globe. So much so that most people don't give it much thought, it's just common knowledge, in the same way that 'car engines work using gasoline' is common knowledge, but few people are mechanics who know how it actually works. 'The Earth is a globe' is common knowledge but not a lot of people understand gravity, general relativity, optics, and geodesy, just to name a couple of relevant subjects. All the evidence is there, proof of the Earth's spherical shape, so believing in flat Earth means denying that evidence.

Refusing to accept burden of proof is only one more act of denial.

Prove the space travel conspiracy, or accept photographic evidence of Earth's shape taken from space.

It's back down to "Where do the photons go?"

If the claim is that perspective is a property of how photons move - in the absence of a focussing device like an eye or a camera - then that's saying that they don't travel in straight lines.   But Tom claims that they DO move in straight lines...and (as my thought-experiment, above, shows) that's an inconsistent viewpoint.

Either the Earth isn't Flat...or...there is no such thing as a sunset...or...light doesn't travel in straight lines (aka Magic Perspective).

It really would be nice for Tom to respond to this - or follow up on his TWO promises to start a new thread to explain how the photons move (one from over a month ago - another from about a week ago).

But I fear he's gone into hiding again as he tends to do when there are arguments that he can't refute.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #75 on: November 06, 2017, 04:21:12 AM »
I'm still hopeful that one of his fellow FE faithful will take up the baton for him. Why can't someone on the behalf of flat Earth explain how light works at sunset? If this question is too complicated for your belief system, that should tell you something.

In another thread gone quiet, Tom explained that the vanishing point is caused by things blocking the light (trees, waves, etc.) That would seem to indicate that there would be no sunsets if you were at a high altitude. I asked for confirmation of this from him, with about as much success as you have had on this question.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 04:29:06 AM by mtnman »

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #76 on: November 07, 2017, 04:18:06 AM »
I think I see where Tom is going with this.

I think for him "horizon" is the distance one can see before perspective lines join. It's possible to have your view obstructed by mountains or something, but in the absence of mountains, he's saying that once you see that distance (however far it works out to be) you can't see further.

However, I see a problem.

Look at the second diagram, the one from the Sun's perspective.
If an airplane is flying directly over the observer, it is SLIGHTLY closer to the sun and so is still closer than the "horizon".
BUT. If an airplane is flying farther away from the sun, for example east of the observer at sunset, but flying at a high enough altitude, it is FARTHER away from the sun, and yet is illuminated by direct sunlight and passengers on the plane can still see the sun.

How is this possible?

To get detailed, if we think the sun is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles up, then by flying an airplane 40000 feet (approximately 8 miles) up, the airplane is (sqrt(6000^2 + 3000^2) - sqrt(6000^2 + 2992^2)) or about 3.6 miles closer to the sun.

So if the airplane were 4 miles further away, it should be at the "horizon". If you were to fly on an airplane at a location more than 4 miles (say, 8 miles) east of the sunset and still see the sun it would prove you could still see the sun "beyond the horizon".

Furthermore, if moving away from the sun (or rather, the sun moving away from you) is what causes it to set, you have the same problem by going north or south.

For example, if you start with an observer at sunset at the equator on the equinox, and the sun 3000 miles up and 6000 miles away, then an observer at latitude 37 degrees (approximately Tom's latitude) is 2220 nautical miles north of the equator and thus the overland distance to the sun is sqrt(6000^2 + 2220^2) or about 6400 miles away, so the sun is about 360 miles further away.
NOTE: For this simple example I've assumed a shape of the earth nobody posits, to account for the curvature of the earth I can consider the unipolar model since that's the only one that I can make heads or tails of. In that case, the sun is over a spot 6000 miles along the equator, or about 1/4 of the way around the disk of the earth. That means the sun is actually CLOSER to spots north of the equator, and FURTHER AWAY from spots south of the equator at the same longitude. In any flat earth model we can construct locations along a longitude line that are either much closer or much further from the sun than the observer at the equator.

So on the equinox, an observer at the same longitude as an observer at the equator would see the sunset at a much different time than the observer at the equator does. But, given that it's the equinox, all observers at the same longitude observe the sunset at the same time, causing a problem for this perspective theory.

Tom- is that how the horizon works or does the distance to the horizon vary based on other factors?

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #77 on: November 08, 2017, 06:39:37 AM »
There's been some stuff about 'positive claims' relating to who has to prove what around here, so I want to clear something up.

Quote from: Wikipedia
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

There's also an old thread on this very topic.

Consider an alibi: It can be phrased as a positive claim, 'I was out of town,' or as a negative claim, 'I was not there.' These amount to the same thing, and are supported by the same evidence, e.g. a train ticket or other proof of travel.

So, 'space travel is real' and 'there is a conspiracy to fake space travel' are both positive claims. You can effectively rephrase both into negative claims, 'there is not a conspiracy to fake space travel' and 'there is no real space travel.' Which form they take does not change the substance of the argument.

Photographs taken from space are evidence that space travel is real, satisfying burden of proof for those who make the claim.

That photographs can be altered or faked entirely is not evidence that a specific photograph is altered or fake. Messing with a photo leaves traces that can be analyzed - it is not sufficient to state 'photos are unreliable' in response to a couple decades worth of photographs and videos.

Hence, those who claim that space travel is not real, i.e. that there is a conspiracy to fake space travel, must support their claim by satisfying the burden of proof. This has nothing to do with the semantics of positive vs negative claims.

Prove the space travel conspiracy, or give up.

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #78 on: November 08, 2017, 08:19:37 AM »
There's been some stuff about 'positive claims' relating to who has to prove what around here, so I want to clear something up.

Quote from: Wikipedia
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

There's also an old thread on this very topic.

Consider an alibi: It can be phrased as a positive claim, 'I was out of town,' or as a negative claim, 'I was not there.' These amount to the same thing, and are supported by the same evidence, e.g. a train ticket or other proof of travel.

So, 'space travel is real' and 'there is a conspiracy to fake space travel' are both positive claims. You can effectively rephrase both into negative claims, 'there is not a conspiracy to fake space travel' and 'there is no real space travel.' Which form they take does not change the substance of the argument.

Photographs taken from space are evidence that space travel is real, satisfying burden of proof for those who make the claim.

That photographs can be altered or faked entirely is not evidence that a specific photograph is altered or fake. Messing with a photo leaves traces that can be analyzed - it is not sufficient to state 'photos are unreliable' in response to a couple decades worth of photographs and videos.

Hence, those who claim that space travel is not real, i.e. that there is a conspiracy to fake space travel, must support their claim by satisfying the burden of proof. This has nothing to do with the semantics of positive vs negative claims.

Prove the space travel conspiracy, or give up.
rather, properly disprove that "conspiracy" or give up your claim to its fiction. demonstrate through some sources the doctoring of images or abandon this insanity. see how that works both ways? you're not right. at best, you are maintaining purgatory.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #79 on: December 20, 2017, 07:14:10 PM »
Prove the space travel conspiracy, or give up.
rather, properly disprove that "conspiracy" or give up your claim to its fiction. demonstrate through some sources the doctoring of images or abandon this insanity. see how that works both ways? you're not right. at best, you are maintaining purgatory.

nah mate. You're demonstrating a semantic technique for effecting the appearance of good argument, without actually having any standing to make one. It's a politician's best friend, and one of Tom's only moves. Say 'no, YOU!' and pretend you turned the tables, and demand evidence that's already been provided, and generally ignore what's correct in favor of what feels good to say or hear.