#### Revel

##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2017, 06:30:53 AM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

That's the point. ~20° is not a precise measurement at all. Does it change? Is there not a set value? I know what he said. Even 30° was thrown around a few times. That's a 10-degree difference. It's vague regardless. Specificity is highly recommended under such circumstances.

#### Ga_x2

• 178
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #21 on: October 16, 2017, 12:25:51 PM »

That's the point. ~20° is not a precise measurement at all. Does it change? Is there not a set value? I know what he said. Even 30° was thrown around a few times. That's a 10-degree difference. It's vague regardless. Specificity is highly recommended under such circumstances.
you can calculate yourself, to the precision you deem necessary, what's the angle of incidence of light coming from an object 6000 miles away,  and 3000 miles high.
The problem is that these distances are kinda thrown out there from the FE community, so there's no precision to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out.

Point is, 20° plus or minus 10° is still a long way higher in the sky than 0°...

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2017, 12:52:55 PM »

That's the point. ~20° is not a precise measurement at all. Does it change? Is there not a set value? I know what he said. Even 30° was thrown around a few times. That's a 10-degree difference. It's vague regardless. Specificity is highly recommended under such circumstances.
you can calculate yourself, to the precision you deem necessary, what's the angle of incidence of light coming from an object 6000 miles away,  and 3000 miles high.
The problem is that these distances are kinda thrown out there from the FE community, so there's no precision to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out.

Point is, 20° plus or minus 10° is still a long way higher in the sky than 0°...
This is of course disregarding the other problem with this idea, in that the reason one can 'hide an elephant behind a penny' and Tom put it, is because the Elephant has shrunk due to perspective. The sun however stays the exact same size.

This however is Q&A, not debate. The official answer for this FE hypothesis is that it vanishes due to the perspective effect hiding it behind the swell of the sea, or trees.

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2017, 01:23:57 PM »

Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
can you please draw a diagram with the correct quotes and the path of the light? You keep repeating the same stuff, that has been taken to task a hundred times.

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.

16 days ago Tom said he'd start a new thread explaining how photons travel from the sun to your eye at sunset (which would answer a *lot* of questions and concerns about FET - and SPECIFICALLY answer the question of this thread).   But he STILL hasn't done that - despite reminders.    It's starting to look like he doesn't have an answer...which is what you'd expect to be the case if "magic perspective" has to remain "magic" in order to support the large number of FET problems that it's supposed to explain.  I started a thread on that topic myself - but Junker "vanished" it without any of his usual notifications.  Sounds a lot like the FE'ers aren't keen on answering this key question about their hypothesis.

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

#### mtnman

• 370
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2017, 03:27:51 PM »

Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.

Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.

You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.

It should follow that the most that waves/swells can obscure would be due to the largest wave between the two objects.
And that if you could move your viewpoint above the height of the waves/swells, the sun should be visible again.
The highest wave ever recorded is around 100 feet.
Therefore, if only waves/swells block our view of the sun, we should always be able to view the sun over the ocean from a tall building or a plane.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7169
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2017, 05:51:50 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2017, 06:39:36 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

What you're saying is only true in FET...and indeed, we RE'ers are saying that the horizon cannot exist in a flat earth.   So you are "assuming the consequent".

HOWEVER:  The photons that make up the light from the elephant travel in a straight line towards your eye and hit the dime instead.  This happens because there is a straight line between elephant, dime and eye.  Hence you cannot see the elephant.

But the sun, the horizon and your eye DON'T lie in a straight line...so sunrises and sunsets don't work in FET.

This is PRECISELY why I keep asking you to fulfil your offer to explain how the photons are travelling.   Nothing else makes for a clear explanation of what you THINK is going on here.   The fact that you have been ducking this explanation for over a month now (and 16 days after saying that you WOULD answer it) suggests that you don't have an answer.

Photons travelling in a straight line would take the blue path and miss the tree that's on the horizon.
Photons that WOULD hit the tree would have to take the pink path - but then they aren't travelling in a straight line but cleverly steering themselves to make it look like the sun is behind the tree.  Sadly, this isn't what happens because (we all know) light travels in a straight line.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### Revel

##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2017, 06:54:36 PM »
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all.
Ah, but we can see the horizon in a round object, can't we? If you stand on a sphere, no matter its size (within reasonable bounds), there will always be the solid material representative of the sphere when you look down and no material representative of the sphere when you look up. There must be a transition when you look from the solid material to no solid material. The transition is a thin line— a one-dimensional line of no thickness (by definition)— between the ground and the sky. That is what we call a horizon. Look at this picture and tell me there is no transition line:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSiP5_hnqckubElza8eKZ5H6jRz95Aj-EmjFZgVGKRWAHYrnuWJ

The sun is zero degrees from the horizon's offset. If, in a flat Earth, the sun could possibly appear as depicted in the picture, the entire world would be experiencing sunset. But that isn't the case, is it?

Quote
It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

How does this perspective-drawing view of the world support the flat Earth theory? Sure, we perceive parallel lines as convergent if extended for long distances, but this seems like an irrelevant point.
It is not perspective that places the horizon at eye-level, but the transition line that must always exist between the ground and sky. Actually, in the flat Earth, the horizon should exist at the same place on Earth every time. No building can obstruct your view enough if your altitude is at 100 kilometers. Look at the horizon, approach it (with a plane, of course). If you see new land beyond the first perceived horizon, then the Earth can't possibly be flat, right? If new land is seen, there had to have been curvature that hid the rest of the land beyond this horizon. I can assure you that you will never reach the horizon. It is not a place. It would always exist at a different point, depending on where you are. You told me yourself that the horizon could never be reached. Why do you insist that there is no curvature in the Earth, that it is flat?

#### Ga_x2

• 178
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2017, 07:20:45 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
oh god not again. This is meaningless. You are basically refusing to accept basic geometry because you cannot shoehorn it in your preconceived view. This is demented, I'm sorry.

How do photons travel from the sun to your eyes? What path do they take from a sun which is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high? Draw that path on a diagram.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2017, 07:25:46 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

As always, you use a terrible example in your 'proof' for the horizon. Your claim requires the basic mathematics to fail beyond a certain distance for reasons you have never explained, nor shown to exist in reality. Let's take your train tracks example, shall we?

The US standard for gauge is 4 feet, 8 inches. Let's place our observer precisely in the middle of the tracks, so there's 2 feet, 4 inches to either side of him. The tracks form a perpendicular to his location so we've got 90 degrees. Let's make the math a touch easier and say he's got 1 meter to either side of him. (I'll happily come back to 2 ft, 4 in if you insist, but the distances won't be too measurably different.) So we've got the first two points we need to check this triangle. The last will be distance of the rails. I'll grab some numbers and let's see what we get back for angles.

10 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 11 degrees. Sure, I can still see that clear separation.
25 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 4.5 degrees. Well by all accounts we can still see that separation can't we?
50 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 2 degrees. At roughly half a football field away, we're still seeing them apart from one another. Sounds right.
100 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 1 degree. A full football field away we can still tell the difference? I think our tracks are getting a touch small, but I think so. The boards likely help some.
200 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.5 degrees. Two football fields away. The tracks are still separated. Can we tell though? Well, the human eye is said to start failing at about an angular size of 0.02 degrees. So assuming the tracks are nice bright colors, we're still seeing it. (Bright colors simply to help distinguish the tracks from the brown around them as otherwise we've potentially lost track of them and are judging based on the wood.)
500 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.2 degrees. Still discernible.
1000 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.1 degrees. Alright, still there. How about we kick this up a bit.
1600 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.07 degrees. This is about 1 mile, visible in a number of places, and still seeing the difference.
5700 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.02 degrees. This is about 3.5 miles distant. Right about the horizon line for our viewer. We see these rails just about coming together at about that location normally don't we?

Seems the 'ancient Greek math' matches the reality pretty well so long as one takes into account the known angles the eye can tell things apart. Should we see how far away your sun has to be to get anywhere near that for the ocean? Largest wave ever recorded was 100 ft high. Let's say that's a nice 30 m high. The horizon is 5700 meters away, how about we put the wave right there.

5700 meters away, 30 meters high, 90 degree angle on the wave gives us an angle of; 0.3 degrees to the top of the wave. We're still seeing it by a pretty good margin. But wait, where's the sun supposed to be again?
9.656.000 meters away, 4.828.000 meters high, 90 degree angle to directly beneath it gives us an angle of; 26.56 degrees up to the sun. Hmm, I'm spotting a problem here. There's no way that wave is blocking our view of the sun. Well alright, how can we get our wave to block the sun? How far away does it have to be?
4.828.000 meters high, 90 degree angle right below it, 0.3 degree angle to it, gives us a distance of; 922.071.651 meters. AKA 572.948.761 miles away. Just over half a billion miles. That would be a pretty large Earth wouldn't it?

For the record, the Earth is said to dip 2.55 meters over the 5700 meters to the horizon. This gives us an angle of 0.026 degrees. Just about the angle we can detect. Imagine that. Sure explains why the horizon 'rises to eye level' too doesn't it?

So Tom, how about telling us just what the path the light takes to get to ones eye so that it's blocked by our wave? Because it can't be coming straight from the sun in order to get there, or it wouldn't vanish behind the ocean waves at all. Alternatively show exactly how the math is wrong, and perhaps we can have a discussion.

EDIT: God damnit, Q&A again with this question. Perhaps this should just get moved over to debate? I feel the FE answer to his question has been suitably given, but this sort of thread isn't going to stay Q&A very long right now methinks.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2017, 07:44:38 PM by Curious Squirrel »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7169
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2017, 08:30:24 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

What you're saying is only true in FET...and indeed, we RE'ers are saying that the horizon cannot exist in a flat earth.   So you are "assuming the consequent".

HOWEVER:  The photons that make up the light from the elephant travel in a straight line towards your eye and hit the dime instead.  This happens because there is a straight line between elephant, dime and eye.  Hence you cannot see the elephant.

But the sun, the horizon and your eye DON'T lie in a straight line...so sunrises and sunsets don't work in FET.

This is PRECISELY why I keep asking you to fulfil your offer to explain how the photons are travelling.   Nothing else makes for a clear explanation of what you THINK is going on here.   The fact that you have been ducking this explanation for over a month now (and 16 days after saying that you WOULD answer it) suggests that you don't have an answer.

Photons travelling in a straight line would take the blue path and miss the tree that's on the horizon.
Photons that WOULD hit the tree would have to take the pink path - but then they aren't travelling in a straight line but cleverly steering themselves to make it look like the sun is behind the tree.  Sadly, this isn't what happens because (we all know) light travels in a straight line.

The physics in your scene are entirely wrong. You are using a model in which it is impossible for a horizon to exist. It is impossible for railroad tracks to touch a horizon in that model. Railroad tracks touch the horizon at a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. 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.

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. Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.

Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2017, 08:46:35 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### xenotolerance

• 307
• byeeeeeee
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2017, 08:45:52 PM »
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though

Or try this:

'The model you have provided is untested over long distances and makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven.'

Please provide photographs and a demonstration that 'land ascends to the horizon' from real life and not from sideways diagrams that do not resemble real observational Zetetic experience with a full itemized inventory of all equipment used, the air temperature and pressure that day, unbroken video from multiple angles of the demonstration that include the sun and horizon in the frame at all times, as well as forum verification with the date, a photo ID, and your forum handle in the frame all at one time.

when do you that you'll still be wrong, but at least you'll be consistent

And lordie this is rich:

Quote
Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of perspective which have never been observed.

homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2017, 08:47:59 PM by xenotolerance »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7169
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2017, 08:57:26 PM »
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though

How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?

Quote
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed

3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### gizmo910

• 130
• Si vis pacem, para bellum
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2017, 08:59:52 PM »
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?
Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7169
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2017, 09:01:26 PM »
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### gizmo910

• 130
• Si vis pacem, para bellum
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2017, 09:11:26 PM »
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.

Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.
Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2017, 09:15:08 PM »
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though

How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?

Quote
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed

3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.
I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't) but the limits of human perception DO. You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.

You claim the Earth is flat right now, and thus the sun has to be able to reach the horizon because we see it happen every day. You dismiss any model we offer up because of the second reality. But if the math doesn't work for the first to be true, but we know the second we know has to be, where do you suppose the error is? Could it be with our very first assumption?

IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat. So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance. That means you need to show how/where using examples independent of a round or flat Earth. Do you have such things? Because none have been presented so far.

#### Ga_x2

• 178
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2017, 09:25:54 PM »

The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. 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.
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?

EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!

EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high
« Last Edit: October 16, 2017, 11:29:39 PM by Ga_x2 »

#### Revel

##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2017, 01:01:29 AM »
Vanishing points only exist for truly parallel lines that seem to converge.
Otherwise, vanishing points only exist for an object becoming increasingly smaller.

Tom, are you sure you're using either of these definitions of a vanishing point the way you should be? Or is Google, the infamous mainstream search engine, wrong?

The line of sight and the ground have to at least seem to converge to reach a horizon, so that your precious vanishing point (which is really a line, the horizon, not the sun) appears before the human eye.
The sun can't count as the vanishing point. We see the sun. It hasn't disappeared as it has set. Plus, the ground and our line of sight have to be truly, but not seemingly, parallel for your definition to be correct. Well, there exists a perspective view but no vanishing point to compare. Think about it, Tom.

The sun, on the other note, is not getting noticeably farther either. So I'm sure that this definition of a vanishing point (object) is being used...

#### xenotolerance

• 307
• byeeeeeee
##### Re: The vanishing point
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2017, 02:12:03 AM »
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though

How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?

Quote
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed

3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.

Lands do not, have not ever, and never will "get up to the horizon." They do not "ascend to it," with or without perspective effects. Your diagrams are incorrect - if the sightline is straight out, the horizon will never intersect with it, even on an infinite plane. If you look at the horizon, you are looking slightly down. In other words, your question is bunk.

And your logic is backwards! Sure, he has to design his model of Earth to fit what is actually observed - but when this is done, you end up with a globe. Any flat Earth model is going to have fatal problems because the Earth is not flat. So if you want to design a flat Earth model that fits with reality, I hope you're prepared to move on from your premise.

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