"Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?

  • 67 Replies
  • 16715 Views
*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
"Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« on: October 17, 2011, 10:31:40 PM »
According to the FAQ, the whole FET is based on two main arguments:
  • "Looks flat to me."
  • "Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so."

This topic is about the first argument. To verify if this is an argument against RET, I did a very simple thing: I modelized a hi-poly sphere in a 3D program (Softimage), with 1 unit corresponding to 1 km. Then I added some simplified houses and trees (in scale) and placed a camera in different altitudes, from 2m to 100 km, to see if you could actually see roundness of a round earth. The results:
  • Even from an altitude of 1km, the virtual round earth actually looks perfectly flat.
  • From 10km on, the horizon starts bending, just as we have seen it in those countless balloon videos FE'ers are so annoyed of.

The conclusion is that "it looks flat" isn't a valid argument against RET.

See it for yourself:


?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2011, 12:13:08 AM »
If the earth was a flat disk, and you were arguing that, your diagrams would look exactly the same. Do not confuse the curve of a disk on the horizon, with the earth curving away at the edges of a horizon.

A round and flat earth will wrap around you in a giant circle. Its not the same as observing the earth falling away from you at the edges on a sphere.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 12:15:19 AM by Thork »

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2011, 12:35:19 AM »
You are missing the point. I've no doubt that a flat earth would look flat as well. The point is that the fact the earth looks flat is completely irrelevant for the discussion, as it doesn't prove anything: The earth would look flat in both models. Yet you claim it's an argument in favour of FET, which is wrong.

So the argument "The earth looks flat" is no more relevant as, say, the argument "My rubber duck is yellow".

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2011, 12:55:06 AM »
I think you missed the point of my post. A flat earth would give the diagrams you posted above, what is experienced and seen. But your diagram does not suggest ball-like curvature. At all. The earth does not bulge where you stand or seem to be falling away from you at its edges. ie, the earth looks flat, not spherical.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2011, 01:02:57 AM »
... the earth looks flat, not spherical.

Exactly. The round earth I modelized looks flat. Thus "looks flat" does not imply "is flat". Quod erat demonstrandum.

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2011, 01:09:44 AM »
Erm, it looks flat, it does not look like a ball, ipso facto.

Equo ne credite.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2011, 01:15:36 AM »
Equo ne credite.

Are you implying that I am lying when I say I actually modelized a ball?

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2011, 01:32:05 AM »
As you are probably aware, it means "Don't trust the horse", a reference to the Trojan war.

The earth looks flat, not round. So why do you believe those who are telling you your eyes are wrong and that you should listen to them? You only want to know earth's shape. They may well have an agenda for controlling your perception. Why risk it? Trust your own judgement.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2011, 01:42:53 AM »
The earth looks flat, not round.

It looks what it would look like in either model.

...those who are telling you your eyes are wrong...

Why should someone tell me my eyes are wrong, if I'm seeing what I would see in either model?

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2011, 01:47:25 AM »
Does the last picture look spherical? No. A computer will model it as per globularist perception as it is programmed that way. But honestly, does your diagram look like a ball? Like a physical beach ball or basket ball that you can hold in your hands? Does it show those characteristics, or does it look like a CD?


A ball falls away at the edges. Features are pinched as it curves away. There is an exponential change of perspective as the edges are reached. Your diagram does not exhibit ball like characteristics. Neither does the earth.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 01:53:03 AM by Thork »

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2011, 02:56:05 AM »
In FE, if we saw the edges of the disc, it could be only the icewall, woudn't it?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2011, 03:05:12 AM »
I posted my pictures not to prove that earth looks round at 100km altitude, but in contrary to prove that even at 100km, a round earth would look almost flat.

Does the last picture look spherical? No.

*sight*

That's exactly my point!

I'll explain it in simple words, so you can understand it:

If earth is round, earth looks flat.
If earth is flat, earth looks flat.
Any earth looks flat.
"Looks flat" doesn't prove anything.

So, please, stop using "Looks flat" as argument why the earth can't be possibly round.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 03:12:31 AM by Zogg »

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2011, 03:39:02 AM »
You are still not getting it.

If earth is round, earth looks flat.
This is a stretch of the imagination isn't it? Its like saying, the earth is red. It looks blue and green close up, but really its red. Even if it was blue and green it would look red. So it could be red despite seeming to be mostly blue and green.

If the earth is round, I expect to see hints of roundness. I want it to appear like I am on the top of a bulge, and that the horizon is exponentially falling away at the edge of my perception. What I don't expect is a flat surface that comes to an abrupt end. That, my cognitive senses tell me, is a flat surface. Anyone saying it might be round even though it can only be flat is talking a bunch of horselime.

In FE, if we saw the edges of the disc, it could be only the icewall, woudn't it?
You can only see as far as the edge of your perception. Haze and other particulates in the air prevent you seeing for infinity. Yes you can see the stars above you, but you are only looking through a few miles of air (most of which is very thin). Looking out across the horizon you must look through thousands of miles of air, full of dust, moisture etc. Its hard to see more than 40 miles let alone a few thousand. This is kind of a different subject though. It would be rude to pursue this in this thread, as it means ignoring the objections of the OP.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 03:45:01 AM by Thork »

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2011, 03:57:48 AM »

If earth is round, earth looks flat.
This is a stretch of the imagination isn't it? Its like saying, the earth is red. It looks blue and green close up, but really its red. Even if it was blue and green it would look red. So it could be red despite seeming to be mostly blue and green.

If the earth is round, I expect to see hints of roundness. I want it to appear like I am on the top of a bulge, and that the horizon is exponentially falling away at the edge of my perception. What I don't expect is a flat surface that comes to an abrupt end. That, my cognitive senses tell me, is a flat surface. Anyone saying it might be round even though it can only be flat is talking a bunch of horselime.


The Earth can be round and look flat inasmuch as we appear in our bodies to be solid (or liquid) matter where we are mostly composed of void (void inside the atoms).

It is completely unscientific to rely on what you observe sometimes.

Simple math could tell you that it is not possible to see the curvature of the Earth because Earth is such a huge sphere compared to us.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2011, 04:01:55 AM »
But its not simple math that told you. It was the conspirators, wasn't it? How many times will I have to repeat this? The earth is a disc.

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2011, 04:05:34 AM »
Basic math are undebunkable.

No need to see a conspiration.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2011, 04:11:34 AM »
Its like saying, the earth is red. It looks blue and green close up, but really its red. Even if it was blue and green it would look red. So it could be red despite seeming to be mostly blue and green.

Your analogy is flawed. A sphere looks like a plane from close up (that's what this whole thread is about). A red object looks still red from close up.

How many times will I have to repeat this? The earth is a disc.

Repeating the same hypothesis over and over like a parrot doesn't add anything to it's credibility.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 04:14:35 AM by Zogg »

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2011, 04:13:33 AM »
Basic math are undebunkable.

No need to see a conspiration.
You haven't done any basic maths. You just assumed there must be some.

How many times will I have to repeat this? The earth is a disc.

Repeating the same hypothesis over and over like a parrot doesn't add anything to it's credibility.
Precisely, so telling me over and over that spheres look like discs isn't likely to have much of an effect on me is it?

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2011, 04:15:16 AM »
We are not saying that. We are saying that for an observer like us, there is no perceptive difference between being on a flat surface or a huge sphere.

Math demonstrate that easily.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2011, 04:16:05 AM »
Precisely, so telling me over and over that spheres look like discs isn't likely to have much of an effect on me is it?

I didn't tell you - I showed you. Use your eyes.

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2011, 04:17:56 AM »
We are not saying that. We are saying that for an observer like us, there is no perceptive difference between being on a flat surface or a huge sphere.

Math demonstrate that easily.
Again, you haven't presented any maths.

Precisely, so telling me over and over that spheres look like discs isn't likely to have much of an effect on me is it?

I didn't tell you - I showed you. Use your eyes.
It is you that needs to use your eyes. Look out to sea, or across a desert. Your eyes do not tell you, you are on a ball. Only globularists tell you, that you are on a ball.

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2011, 04:27:27 AM »
The RE is 40,000 km in diameter. You divide it by 360°. So 1° of curvature is 111,111 km. So roughly 40 miles is 0,5° of curvature.

Not detectable by a human eye.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2011, 04:29:24 AM »
The RE is 40,000 km in diameter. You divide it by 360°. So 1° of curvature is 111,111 km. So roughly 40 miles is 0,5° of curvature.

Not detectable by a human eye.
111 km is not detectable by a human eye? Citation please.

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2011, 04:31:52 AM »
You don't get it.

You told that we could see as far as 40 miles, which is roughly 1/2 of 111 km, so we can observe 0,5° of curvature, which isn't enough for the human eye to detect.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2011, 04:32:51 AM »
Citation please.

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2011, 04:34:05 AM »
Do the experiment yourself with a framed picture !
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2011, 04:39:44 AM »
Yeah, that's what I thought. ::)

*

TheUnseenForce

  • 39
  • My logic is undeniable.
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2011, 04:50:11 AM »
s = sqrt(2rh+h^2)

s = line of sight distance
r = radius of sphere (Earth = ~3959mi)
h = height viewed from (altitude)

5.5ft: 2.9mi (Typical person's height to eyeballs)

No, the human eye can not detect this curvature.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2011, 05:39:39 AM »
Look out to sea, or across a desert. Your eyes do not tell you, you are on a ball. Only globularists tell you, that you are on a ball.

My eyes tell me exactly what they would tells me if I were on a huge ball. That's what I demonstrated you, but you keep ignoring this argument and state - against all evidence I provided - that your eyes would see some curvature.

You act like someone who is standing in front of an Egyptian pyramid and keeps saying "I see a triangle. Therefore it can't be a pyramid." He isn't ready to verify his theory by walking around the pyramid, he demands proof that it's not a triangle - but doesn't accept any proof I give him.
  • When I show him that a pyramid looks exactly like a triangle from that angle, he keeps saying "But I don't see a pyramid, I see a triangle."
  • When I use trigonometry to prove that it's a pyramid, he claims that trigonometry is based on aggressively pyramidalist Pyramid Theory.
  • When I tell him that people have walked around the building and confirmed that it's a pyramid, he pretends that they must be either liars or brainwashed.
  • When I ask why they must be liars or brainwashed, he says it's because it's a triangle.
  • When put a camera on a balloon to show him pictures of the pyramid from above, he says he is sick of pictures made from balloons.
  • When I ask why the pyramid's shadow behaves as it does and not as his theory predicts, he says it's because of "bendy light".
And so on...
But he doesn't provide any proof for his triangle theory, nor does he disprove the pyramid theory - he just keeps saying "My eyes tell me it's a triangle. Use your eyes! It's the World conspiracy led by the Egyptian Tourism Office that tell you it's a pyramid."

Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2011, 05:49:34 AM »
I've never understood why the flat Earthers seem to consider the eye an infallible tool. The simple fact that optical illusions and camouflage exists shows that the eye and brain can perceive one thing when the truth is something else.

It is you that needs to use your eyes. Look out to sea, or across a desert. Your eyes do not tell you, you are on a ball. Only globularists tell you, that you are on a ball.

My eyes don't tell me Greenland exists. Should I then assume it doesn't?