How does Lunar eclipses work?

Sounds like what he's saying to me.

But on a Flat Earth a ray of light emitted at a height of 10 m and parallel to the ground may only be blocked by something at least 10m tall. True, were it not parallel to the ground, a shorter object could do so. I am however talking about a ray of light that stays an equal distance above the Earth's surface. As the Earth is supposedly Flat this line must be straight, and starting out at 10m high must maintain this height forever. Nothing shorter than 10m will ever obstruct it, as it is always that high from the ground.

Imagine that we are standing on top of a building 50 feet in height near the coast of an ocean. If we look at the eye level horizon we might see a ship sitting along the edge, with its hull backgrounded by the sea and its mast backgrounded by the sky. The line of the horizon crosses behind the midpoint of the ship, cutting it in half. The deck of the ship lays perfectly along the horizon line.

This occurs despite us standing 50 feet above sea-level and the ship being only 22 feet in height above the surface of the sea, its deck being 11 feet in height.

At that instant, the ship's deck is at eye level level with both of us. If we were to take a powerful laser and shine it towards the ship at a 90 degree angle level with our line of sight the Captain of that vessel will be able to see the red dot. The Captain sees the laser despite being 28 feet below you and the laser being shot out parallel to the ground at a 90 degree angle.

From an outside perspective, an imaginary side view without any notion of perspective, we could say that the laser beam should overshoot the captain by 35 feet. However, due to perspective the beam will continue on a straight path parallel in accordance to the laser's eye level and the laser's perspective.

If we shoot the laser beam at the ship, the laser beam will hit the ship. Even light is affected by the laws of perspective.

If we shoot the laser parallel to the Earth at a height of 50 feet, it will overshoot by 35 feet.

Are you to tell me that if we point and shoot a laser directly at a distant object it will not hit that object?

Here's another example:

Lets say that the ship in our previous example is shored up next to our fifty foot tall building on the coast. The captain is down below on the ship making preparations to go out to sea for a fishing expedition. We are on the top of the building looking down upon the deck.

We have an idea: Lets shine a laser onto the the deck as it departs out to sea.

At first the laser is pointed downwards at the ship as it leaves shore. As the ship leaves port and recedes up into the horizon line the laser is at all times shining on the deck of the ship. If we brought along a good telescope we can confirm that the laser dot is shone upon the ship at all times during our experiment. If we have a radio we can call up the Captain or a crew hand to confirm that our dot stays on the ship.

As the ship ascends and approaches the horizon line of the sea, the angle of our laser must approach 90 degrees parallel to the surface of the earth. When the ship is a significant distance away the deck will sit along the horizon line just as it did in the previous example. At this point the deck is at eye level with the observer. The laser, having a constant shine on the deck of the ship is now angled 90 degrees. By definition the horizon is eye level - 90 degrees parallel to the surface of the earth.

Are you tell me that if we point and shoot a laser directly at a distant object it will not hit that object?

Here's another example:

Lets say that the ship in our previous example is shored up next to our fifty foot tall building on the coast. The captain is down below on the ship making preparations to go out to sea for a fishing expedition. We are on the top of the building looking down upon the deck.

We have an idea: Lets shine a laser onto the the deck as it departs out to sea.

At first the laser is pointed downwards at the ship as it leaves shore. As the ship leaves port and recedes up into the horizon line the laser is at all times shining on the deck of the ship. If we brought along a good telescope we can confirm that the laser dot is shone upon the ship at all times during our experiment. If we have a radio we can call up the Captain or a crew hand to confirm that our dot stays on the ship.

As the ship ascends and approaches the horizon line of the sea, the angle of our laser must approach 90 degrees parallel to the surface of the earth. When the ship is a significant distance away the deck lies along the horizon line. At this point the ship is at eye level with the observer. The laser, having a constant shine on the deck of the ship is not angled 90 degrees because by definition the horizon is eye level - 90 degrees parallel to the surface of the earth.

Or simple because the ship is following the curvature of the earth.  One of the two. 

Or simple because the ship is following the curvature of the earth.  One of the two.

The curvature of the earth or the ship's sinking into the sea has nothing to do with this analogy.

Stay out of the discussion.

If you shine a laser parallel to the Earth's surface, it will remain at that height forever on FE. If the laser is at 50 feet when you shine it, it will be at 50 feet along its entire length. Nearly-90 is not 90 degrees, and that difference IS significant.

Quote

Or simple because the ship is following the curvature of the earth.  One of the two.

The curvature of the earth or the ship's sinking into the sea has nothing to do with this analogy.

Stay out of the discussion.

The shadow object told me I didn't have to listen to you. 

If you shine a laser parallel to the Earth's surface, it will remain at that height forever on FE. If the laser is at 50 feet when you shine it, it will be at 50 feet along its entire length. Nearly-90 is not 90 degrees, and that difference IS significant.

Are you to tell me that the line of the horizon is not 90 degrees parallel to the surface of the earth? There's no "nearly" here - the horizon line is exactly 90 degrees parallel to the earth's surface. That's eye level by definition.

If we cut out a right angle from cardboard and hold one edge up to our eye, aligning it with the edge of the horizon the opposite edge will be pointed straight down without deviating.

If we bring along a theodolite on a tripod we can look into the scope, aligning it with the edge of the horizon and see that it is exactly 90 degrees parallel to the ground.

That is in fact not the case. While the imaginary 'horizon line' that exists in our vision (and all perspective drawings) is always at eye-level, the point where ground meets sky is in fact only at eye level when the eye is 0m above the Earth's surface. In most man-made structures, and certainly from a standing position, this difference is visually indistinguishable, but on high mountains the ground-sky boundary is significantly below 'eye level' (unless you look down at it). YOu are mistaking the reference to horizon in your article with a reference to ground-sky boundary. In perspective drawing it usually makes little difference, because the drawing is usually from around ground level, but that does not mean the two are synonymous terms.

I suggest you consider also that only a flat earth you would only see a ground-sky boundary at eye level everywhere with perfect (i.e. infinite) visibility. Anything less would yield a slightly lower boundary.

That's a great post, Gin.

Tom?

Tom?  Hello?  No response?  I think this one will be hard to get out of (assuming Gin is right, and I think he is).

The 'shadow object' which is actually made up of quintessence.

Bump, for Tom's attention.

It might need a whole post of its own.

That is in fact not the case. While the imaginary 'horizon line' that exists in our vision (and all perspective drawings) is always at eye-level, the point where ground meets sky is in fact only at eye level when the eye is 0m above the Earth's surface. In most man-made structures, and certainly from a standing position, this difference is visually indistinguishable, but on high mountains the ground-sky boundary is significantly below 'eye level' (unless you look down at it). YOu are mistaking the reference to horizon in your article with a reference to ground-sky boundary. In perspective drawing it usually makes little difference, because the drawing is usually from around ground level, but that does not mean the two are synonymous terms.

Absolutely incorrect. The horizon line is at eye level whether you are 5, 50, 500, or 5,000 feet in the air. The horizon line does not "go below eye-level" as you ascend. Apparently you've never been in a plane - if you had you'd know that when looking out the window about half of your vision is filled by land and sea. The other half is filled by air. The line of the horizon lies in the middle.

If the horizon "got lower" as you ascended from sea-level then at 40,000 feet in the air the view out of an airplane's window should be of nothing but sky. It's not. Just ask TheEngineer if the view from his plane's cockpit window shows half land, half air, with the horizon in the middle. He's a pilot after all.

-

One easy experiment you can do for yourself is find a computer game which can render large 3D maps. Move your character to one end of the map, center your crosshair on the line of the horizon, and turn on noclip. Without moving the mouse, ascend in height and notice how the line of the horizon will stay centered on the crosshair until you run out of land to see.

While a game is not comparable to life, this perspective effect should be apparent and visible in most modern computer games. If you can find a simulation which can render a perpetual plane, the horizon will stay aligned with the crosshair no matter how high you ascend.

I could demonstrate mathematically that you are incorrect, but your difficulty understanding such proofs makes the prospect unappealing. If you honestly can't READ and understand my post, especially the part where the Earth would have to be an INFINITE, perfectly visible plane to have a horizon at eye level, then I will prove it for you. Please don't copy-paste your posts, it just makes you sound like a fucking idiot.

"I could mathematically demonstrate you wrong, but I won't. You'll just have to take my word for it"

That's a very poor statement Gin. You're wrong. Give it up. Load up one of your computer shoot-em ups and turn on noclip. The evidence is right there.

The earth does not have to be infinite, just very big. Flat or Round, the flatness of the earth is great enough that from the altitude of an international flight the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.

Neither does the horizon need to be perfectly visible. As one ascends and overlooks the imperfections on the horizon he will continue to see more and more land. Even if the land is eventually obscured by atmosphere, there will still be a distinct break between land and air. There is zero reason why atmospheric haze would make the horizon line descend.

Guess I will have to go cruise up the mountain again.  But since I was already up there today I will do it tomorrow.  I will take a level with me. 

"I could mathematically demonstrate you wrong, but I won't. You'll just have to take my word for it"

That's a very poor statement Gin. You're wrong. Give it up. Load up one of your computer shoot-em ups and turn on noclip. The evidence is right there.

The earth does not have to be infinite, just very big. Flat or Round, the flatness of the earth is great enough that from the altitude of an international flight the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.

Neither does the horizon need to be perfectly visible. As one ascends and overlooks the imperfections on the horizon he will continue to see more and more land. Even if the land is eventually obscured by atmosphere, there will still be a distinct break between land and air. There is zero reason why atmospheric haze would make the horizon line descend.

Don't misquote me, if you insist I will demonstrate it, I just hoped to save myself the effort by you actually using your brain. Oh well.

On an infinite plane (such as the Earth supposedly is) any line of sight below eye level will hit the Earth at some point. This would result in a horizon at eye level whatever the vertical elevation. However, there are certain visibility limits that are imposed by atmospheric imperfections etc. that mean that if a line of sight is beyond a certain length, light will not effectively travel its distance and you will not see the ground at that location. Lines of sight very close to 0 (eye level) are significantly longer than those even a few degrees away, so there can, on FE, never be a perfect horizon at eye level.

I can see your problem understanding this is based on your extremely flawed view of perspective. I may at some point try to remedy this also, but given your very limited understanding of the concepts of diagrams, perception and mathematics it may well be a lost cause.

"I could mathematically demonstrate you wrong, but I won't. You'll just have to take my word for it"

That's a very poor statement Gin. You're wrong. Give it up.

Irony.

Woah! the tension is on the rise. If tom and gin were in the same room, punches would have been thrown by now.

Absolutely incorrect. The horizon line is at eye level whether you are 5, 50, 500, or 5,000 feet in the air. The horizon line does not "go below eye-level" as you ascend.

Do you think before you post?

Parallel lines do not intersect (at a distance less than infinity). If your line of sight is PARALLEL with the plane of the earth (~2m), then your line of sight is still the same ~2m above the horizon at the vanishing point (even though it looks to be very very close).

Imagine turning your head 90 degrees left or right and observing railroad tracks in a straight line. One is your line of sight, one is ground level. They are PARALLEL to each other. They do not intersect.

Do you think before you post?

Again, you come off as extremely condescending. If you are looking to having a true debate, you don't go about saying stuff like this. Also, you do realize that photons experience the same acceleration that we do? Over long distances the "straight line" is not so straight.

Please, just leave our forums if you plan on debating in such a manner.

The effects of acceleration would bend a photon traveling across the entire Flat Earth downwards by only 0.3mm. This does not explain why the Sun totally ceases to be visible.

Please, just leave our forums if you plan on debating in such a manner.

Our forums? Said by the person with 2 posts?!

Absolutely incorrect. The horizon line is at eye level whether you are 5, 50, 500, or 5,000 feet in the air. The horizon line does not "go below eye-level" as you ascend.

This picture pretty much proves that comment wrong (for both FE and RE), angle x is clearly bigger than angle y, hence a different level than eye level...



Unless of course you believe that earth is an infinite plane.

Tom Bishop is confusing the ground-sky visual boundary with the horizon. The horizon is not something you can see. In common speech maybe, but not in scientific reality. In our everyday lives the two are synonymous because they are so close together.

so i didnt go up the mountain but I was driving around and clearly the horizon line wasnt at my eye level. 

It doesn't matter where the horizon line is. The sinking ship "phenomenon" can ONLY be explained by a round earth.

Whether this flat earth is finite or not, you could always see the ship. It would NOT "sink." It would only seem to shrink to the naked eye. Pull out your telescope though, and you can still see it.

If there is one inch in height discrepancy, it will block out all object beyond it.

This is absolutely incorrect. If said ship is 10 feet tall, this 1 inch wave will NOT block it from your veiw or block a laser shone on it. 

Let's say the earth is flat. We shine a laser from 8 feet above sea level parallel to the earth at a 10 foot tall boat. If the earth is indeed flat, it will continue to shine on forever until it hits the 10 foot tall boat, no matter how far away it is. To the naked eye, it does indeed seem that both the ship and the laser beam dissapear below or converge into the horizon. But go find your telescope again, and low and behold, there's the ship with a laser dot on it 8 feet up!

Perspective is just that: how you perceive something; in this case, how you see it. It doesn't necessarily mean that's what is actually going on.

look at this picture. 

Do you really think that pencil has a huge point and then tapers off towards the eraser? Because that's the same effect you see when the ship gets far away on a flat earth. It looks like it's shrinking the farther away it is, but even when it's 5,000 miles away from you, the boat is still 10 feet tall. Nothing shorter than 10 feet tall can ever block the laser beam.

That's an outstanding explanation. I've been trying to get the same point across to Tom for ages. It's such a massive FE weakness though, I wouldn't expect surrender any time soon. If they give it up, they can't work around it. FE is finished.