[Tom Bishop]

Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" 

That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"

...

Samuel Birley Rowbotham backs up the various aspects of the ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this subject matter.

He does more than tell. He shows. Important distinction.

Read the material.

All that we have there is line diagrams and writing.

You're taking someone else to task for only providing a video with line diagrams and commentary.

There's no difference.

If you can take someone else to task for this, it's equally valid to take ENaG to task for the same reason.

In order to take ENAG to the task you will need to provide contradicting experiments. There are more than just explanations in the work. There are experiments which prove the various attributes of those explanations. Those need to be contradicted.

The Youtube video we were linked to, of a man explaining Euclid's version of perspective, provides no experiments. There are no experiments given showing that perspective lines will merge an infinite distance away, or that they will never merge. None. This is an assumption without demonstration.

Since the assertions in the video are given without evidence, we can disregarded them without evidence.

We have evidence for our explanation of perspective, and you do not have evidence for your explanation of perspective. You should be embarrassed.

[inquisitive]

Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" 

That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"

...

Samuel Birley Rowbotham backs up the various aspects of the ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this subject matter.

He does more than tell. He shows. Important distinction.

Read the material.

All that we have there is line diagrams and writing.

You're taking someone else to task for only providing a video with line diagrams and commentary.

There's no difference.

If you can take someone else to task for this, it's equally valid to take ENaG to task for the same reason.

In order to take ENAG to the task you will need to provide contradicting experiments. There are more than just explanations in the work. There are experiments which prove the various attributes of those explanations. Those need to be contradicted.

The Youtube video we were linked to, of a man explaining Euclid's version of perspective, provides no experiments. There are no experiments given showing that perspective lines will merge an infinite distance away, or that they will never merge. None. This is an assumption without demonstration.

Since the assertions in the video are given without evidence, they are disregarded without evidence.

We have evidence for our explanation of perspective, and you do not have evidence for your explanation of perspective. You should be embarrassed.

As discussed many times, why is nobody repeating these experimets?

Perspective is a word you misuse.  It is something on an image, not an explanation for actual measured distances and angles.

[edby]

Perspective is a word you misuse.  It is something on an image, not an explanation for actual measured distances and angles.

I explained this to Bishop above, but he seems unable to understand.

[AATW]

In order to take ENAG to the task you will need to provide contradicting experiments. There are more than just explanations in the work. There are experiments which prove the various attributes of those explanations. Those need to be contradicted.

They have been.
And every time you dismiss those experiments on spurious grounds and when you finally agree there are no reasonable grounds for dismissing them you just declare them fake.

 

[edby]

There are no experiments given showing that perspective lines will merge an infinite distance away, or that they will never merge.

There can’t be any such experiments. Parallel lines by definition do not meet. I.e. they are defined as lines which are equidistant at every point.

If, by experiment perhaps, you find a pair of lines that meet at any point, then they cannot be parallel, for the definition rules that out.

By analogy, there is no point in an experiment to find a married bachelor. If you find any married men at all, then they are not bachelors. They lost that status when they got married. Likewise, lines which join at any point have lost the status of being parallel.

[edit] Regarding railway tracks, they of course have to be parallel, otherwise the train would come off the tracks.

[AATW]

Read through the entire page. I also specify in the first sentence "On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa."

A very clear and chilly day. Qualifier. It is not possible to see the opposite coast on some days. On those days where the opposite coast can be seen, it must be because the day and and the ocean is calm. It is possible to observe the effect at times through the year, but mainly on clear/calm days as was qualified.

Can I suggest this be removed from that Wiki page then:

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions