The FE sun is impossible [revisited]

  • 162 Replies
  • 24350 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39099
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #150 on: October 02, 2008, 08:54:53 AM »
Quote
This is where the use of a telescope or binoculars come in.  The binoculars or telescope magnify the image and overcome the lower limit of visual acuity.

Well yes, people have been able to restore half sunken hulls on lakes and other calm bodies of water by looking at it through a telescope, proving that they were not really behind the convexity of the earth.

Thanks for keeping up.

And you have yet to provide any photographic documentation of this phenomenon.  Thanks for staying behind.

P.S.  Drawings don't count as they are easier to fake than photos.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 08:57:01 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #151 on: October 02, 2008, 09:21:09 AM »
On a calm surface when the ship shrinks into the Vanishing Point it appears to sink into the water as it recedes because it is at such a distance that the eye cannot discern the hull from the sea.
Uh no. If the eye can't discern the hull then it can't discern the sail (if both are about the same size) because both shrink at the same rate. Something of equal size and equal distance would be equally easy or equally difficult to distinguish. Hence the 'uniform' discussion.  ::)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 09:23:32 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #152 on: October 02, 2008, 09:33:42 AM »
Quote
No no Tom, whole ship shrinks (not sinks), at the same rate.   This is not what you or Rowbothem (with his perspective lines) are saying.   Please refer to be previous post on the relationship between distance and apparent size.

On a calm surface when the ship shrinks into the Vanishing Point it appears to sink into the water as it recedes because it is at such a distance that the eye cannot discern the hull from the sea.

People have been able to restore the hull by looking at the half sunken hull through a telescope, proving that it is not really behind a convex earth: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

Tom, when Dyno provided compelling photographic evidence on this effect (which you never have, despite numerous requests), you were force to coincided that "This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards"

In other words: Like Judas Iscariot, you disowned Rowbothem and adopted a completely contrary theory that makes the entire world "appear" to be curved;  A nod (if ever there was one) that Rowbothem and your "window" could be wrong.



I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #153 on: October 02, 2008, 09:59:57 AM »
As for this vanishing point theory (objects Vanish when they get too far away).  Take this scenario, a person, lets call him Bob, is standing on a beach watching a ship sail towards the horizon.  Behind Bob is a raised tower or platform, where Tim is standing and watching the same ship sail towards the horizon.

Bob is closer to the ship, but Tim is at a higher altitude.  Why is it that when Bob looses sight of the ship over the horizon, or vanishing point, Tim will still be able to see it.  Assuming that both people have 20/20 vision and are using no visual magnifiers.  The Tower where Tim is standing is 10 feet behind Bob, the tower is 25 feet tall.  Also, assume that the beach where both Bob and the tower are standing is exactly 1 ft above sea level.  Both Bob and Tim are 6 ft tall.

Take the same situation with Bob and Tim, only instead of them watching a ship sail towards the horizon, they are simply watching the sunset.  When Bob sees the sunset disappear below the horizon, Tim, who is further away from the horizon, will still be able to see the sun for quite some time before it finally sinks below the horizon from his perspective.

Please do not give me the "Atmospheric Density" argument for your reply.  Tim is 25 feet higher than Bob, and his view of the sun would last a long time after Bob lost his view, 25 feet would not make a noticeable difference.

how does this support the vanishing point theory?

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #154 on: October 02, 2008, 10:33:14 AM »
This thread is for the purpose of discussing the FE Sun and therefore I ask that all who are participating in this thread with the sinking effect post here in the future. Thanks.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23639.0
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #155 on: October 02, 2008, 11:46:28 AM »
Quote
Uh no. If the eye can't discern the hull then it can't discern the sail (if both are about the same size) because both shrink at the same rate. Something of equal size and equal distance would be equally easy or equally difficult to distinguish. Hence the 'uniform' discussion.

When two bodies (the ship and sea) recede and squish together so closely beyond the angular resolving poser beyond the human eye they will appear to merge into each other. On the ship's hull this merging takes place from the bottom up as it recedes and squishes into the horizon.

When a ship is half obscured the sails aren't merging into anything. The sails are still at a higher altitude, and so it will take longer for them to squish into the horizon line. It tales longer for bodies at higher altitudes to reach the horizon line than bodies at lower altitudes. A flock of birds receding into the distance, for example, would reach the horizon line sooner than a jet would.

Quote
Tom, when Dyno provided compelling photographic evidence

Nope. It's not compelling evidence. Dyno's images are exactly consistent with what Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us we should experience.

From the chapter Perspective on the Sea from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."

Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us directly that a telescope will not be able to restore the hull on a sea due to the waves and swells. Dyno used his telescope to look at the sea, so his being unable to restore the hull to any significant degree is exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham predicts.

The Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

Dyno has proven Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham correct once again. The more you post Dyno's image, the more correct Samuel Birley Rowbotham becomes.

Quote
As for this vanishing point theory (objects Vanish when they get too far away).  Take this scenario, a person, lets call him Bob, is standing on a beach watching a ship sail towards the horizon.  Behind Bob is a raised tower or platform, where Tim is standing and watching the same ship sail towards the horizon.

blah blah blah

I don't see why I need to explain the fictitious results of a fictitious experiment.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 07:34:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #156 on: October 02, 2008, 07:26:36 PM »
When two bodies (the ship and sea) recede and squish together so closely beyond the angular resolving poser beyond the human eye they will appear to merge into each other. On the ship's hull this merging takes place from the bottom up as it recedes and squishes into the horizon.

Saying something doesn't make it true. Stop repeating yourself, we already see your side of the argument and have presented evidence against it.

Quote
When a ship is half obscured the sails aren't merging into anything. The sails are still at a higher altitude, and so it will take longer for them to squish into the horizon line. It tales longer for bodies at higher altitudes to reach the horizon line than bodies at lower altitudes. A flock of birds receding into the distance, for example, would reach the horizon line sooner than a jet would.

You know the whole proportional thing you agreed about? Well I'll post a diagram.

The left succession demonstrates the way a ship would appear as it moves into the distance on a plane. You consistently claim perspective causes the effect portrayed on the right. What happened to the light rays extending from the boats hull to your eyes? If they can not be interpreted because they are too far away/small than anything the same size would be equally invisible. There is no mechanism of perspective that would selectively cut out pieces of the ship because it touches the horizon line. I also made an orange and red line to demonstrate how the proportions of the left ship (4:1) don't change.

Quote
From the chapter Perspective on the Sea from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."
Since waves and swells are not a function of perspective, make a note that he fails to explain how his perspective predicts this. His conclusions aren't backed his theory, and his theory isn't backed by physics.

Quote
The Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm
Whenever somebody posts evidence, it needs to be evidence. This is not. If I wrote a book a hundred years ago saying that the sun was doing loops in the sky, someone in modern day better question it.

Quote
The more you post Dyno's image, the more correct Samuel Birley Rowbotham becomes.
Not only is this untrue (explained above), but the logic is false as well. I just want to point out that presenting evidence does not define truth. Evidence merely directs us towards truth, it doesn't change reality.

It is evident that you have no argument as you have not been able to refute a single point. I see not one quote from my post with an explanation. Simply posting, 'this is the way it is' is a flawed argument.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #157 on: October 02, 2008, 07:39:18 PM »
Quote
Whenever somebody posts evidence, it needs to be evidence. This is not. If I wrote a book a hundred years ago saying that the sun was doing loops in the sky, someone in modern day better question it.

The thing is you guys have failed to question it and demonstrate it wrong time and time again. An observation on an ocean is not the same as an observation on a lake. You guys have failed to read the source material and see that the experiment is only applicable to calm bodies of water. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has explicitly told us that

"when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be.""

Maybe we can continue this conversation once you guys have some material which can cause the experiments to come into question, but until then your pictures only show what Samuel Birley Rowbotham already saw and predicted 150 years ago.

Quote
The left succession demonstrates the way a ship would appear as it moves into the distance on a plane. You consistently claim perspective causes the effect portrayed on the right.

Do you have a video of the sinking ship effect? If not, then shove off. You don't know whether the ship shrinks proportionally or appears to sink.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 07:42:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #158 on: October 02, 2008, 08:01:08 PM »
The thing is you guys have failed to question it and demonstrate it wrong time and time again.
Wrong and wrong. We have done nothing but question it. And demonstrate it wrong? Read the OP, I posted the physics dictating the mechanism by which perspective works, along with a diagram.

Quote
An observation on an ocean is not the same as an observation on a lake. You guys have failed to read the source material and see that the experiment is only applicable to calm bodies of water. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has explicitly told us that.

Calm waters can be determined by the waves at the shore line. My personal observations were under such conditions. Besides, I have also been to lakes with calm water and found the same observations to be true. You assume I was at the ocean.

Quote
Maybe we can continue this conversation once you guys have some material which can cause the experiments to come into question, but until then your pictures only show what Samuel Birley Rowbotham already saw and predicted 150 years ago.

Sigh.
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy
Make note that he fails to explain how his perspective predicts this. His conclusions aren't backed his theory, and his theory isn't backed by physics.

Quote
Do you have a video of the sinking ship effect? You don't know whether the ship shrinks proportionally or appears to sink.
Not having a video doesn't mean I don't know. How would a video prove anything anyways? It would only demonstrate:
1. The convexity of the Earth OR
2. Sinking ship effect
The diagram is for a flat plane, and is a direct logical consequence of the physics I presented.

Quote
If not, then shove off.
Think your arguments through and you won't get emotional.  ;)
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #159 on: October 02, 2008, 08:02:08 PM »
Whoops we are in the wrong thread.
POST HERE:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23639.0
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #160 on: October 03, 2008, 01:00:32 AM »
Do you have a video of the sinking ship effect? If not, then shove off. You don't know whether the ship shrinks proportionally or appears to sink.

A-HA. You're now asking for a video.  There's seems to be pattern to all this.  The bits of ships do not suddenly "enter the vanishing point".  A "vanishing point" is just a drawing aid for artists.  More importantly, "bits" of the ship do no disappear due to perspective.


Tom, Rotherham's perceptive geometry is wrong, and you are unable to show us a single shred of modern evidence which suggests it is.

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

steve-sy

Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #161 on: December 01, 2008, 08:30:44 PM »
I have a question about sunsets and risings...
In FET, the sunlight hits a limited area of the earth, that is in what we call "day". Very good. Then for the sunsets, the sun gets further, and become smaller and optical effects and stuff. OK, but now... it's a fact that when it's night in a part of the world, in the other is day. So how do you coordinate this getting away movement of the sun, with the rising in the opposite part of the world? Something's missing here, or I don't get it.



wow deep thought

Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #162 on: December 02, 2008, 01:34:51 AM »
Tom, about how we know that the camera was above the height of the Waves. The sand where the camera was sighted was dry. If it was beneath the hight of the waves the sand would be wet as it would be lower than the highest water level. Thus is the sand was dry then it must be above the maximum height of the waves. If it is higher than the maximum height of the waves, then they could not ahve gotten in the way and your argument fails.

But back on Topic...

None of the FEers have answered the question about how the sun can appear to travel in a constant angular velocity, and yet still be subject to the perspective effect.

As a side note, the arguments that the FEers are positing for the perspective effect for ship disappearing over the horizon actually disprove the effect for the sun. This is because they are using the perspective effect to allow a ship to become smaller, but then if this is applied to the sun, then it too should appear to get smaller, but it doesn't.

Either the perspective effect makes things get smaller, or they don't. You can't have it both ways.

As a good rule of thumb, if you double the distance, the objects look half the size.

FET places the Sun at 3000 km above the Earth, but RoboSteve said "the Sun should light up a circle of radius 7848 kilometres on the surface of the Earth." As 7848km is more than twice the 3000km that the sun should be overhead, this means that eh Sun should be less than half the Radius at sun rise/set than at midday. That is unless the Sun is much greater than 3000km above us (like around 144,000,000km away - at that distance we would see little variation in size between Sun rise/set and midday, but then that would put it at RE distances).

Now, if you try to use atmospheric effects to make the sun appear larger at Sun Rise/Set, you then have to explain why a Ship does not get this effect as well.

Also, because perspective would effect horizontal distance as well as vertical distance, then if the ship is appearing to go over the horizon because perspective makes it appear to shrink, then at the point where we see it "go over the horizon" the horizontal distance should also be reduced to a small point.

However, all the photos (even the ones posted by the FEers as proof of their theory - so they must accept these as valid evidence) show that there is still substantial horizontal size to the ship even as it goes over the horizon. Not only that, in many of the photos, the ships are actually taller than they are wide, so that if we were seeing them shrink, we should have lost the horizontal size first.

In other words, the evidence presented by the FEers, and that they claim is reliable evidence, actually disproves the whole perspective effect completely.

So Tom, as a Zetetic, you reach a conclusion based off of the evidence. If the evidence (that even you have presented) rules out FET, then what else can you do but accept that FET (as you have presented it) has to be incorrect.
Everyday household experimentation.