Sunrise/Sunset?

Quote from: turtles on June 16, 2009, 02:25:59 PM

Nevermind the bendy light, what about this! If the sun has to follow its "orbit" around the sky once every 24 hours then during the northern summer it will have to go more slowly then during the southern summer when it has to follow a much larger circle. So we have a magic sun which can speed up and slow down at different times of the year, somehow losing and gaining huge amounts of inertial energy.

Either that or it moves across the sky much faster during the southern summer. Easily measureable.

Oops, Ive broken FET

still waiting...

googled Rowbotham and found this, on a Zetetic Astronomy site no less...

Quote

Rowbotham never adequately explains his alternative astronomy. If the Copernican theory so adequately explains planetary motions, why discard it, and what would he use in its place? What is the sun orbiting around once a day and how does it work like a spotlight, not a 'point source'? If the moon is self-luminous, what creates its phases? If gravity appears to work here on earth, why doesn't it apply to the celestial objects just a few hundred miles up?

To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).

CHAPTER I.

ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED.

THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers. The real state of things escapes our observation; or, if it presents itself to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new efforts of a vain ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, and labour to make it tally with our favourite schemes. Thus, by blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd composition of truth and error. * * * These have not done near so much harm as that pride and ambition which has led philosophers to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and finished system of Nature; and, in order to obtain this at once, to take the liberty of inventing certain principles and hypotheses from which they pretend to explain all her mysteries."

"Theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humour and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one, and sometimes with another."

The system of Copernicus was admitted by its author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following are his words:--"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. * * * Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. * * * The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

The Newtonian and all other "views" and "systems" have the same general character as the "hypothesis of the terrestrial motion," framed by Copernicus. The foundations or premises are always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change. Until the practice of theorising is universally relinquished, philosophy will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, antagonistic to the highest aspirations of humanity. Let there be adopted a true and practical free-thought method, with sequence as the only test of truth and consistency, and the philosopher may become the Priest of Science and the real benefactor of his species. "Honesty of thought is to look truth in the face, not in the side face, but in the full front; not merely to look at truth when found, but to seek it till found. There must be no tampering with conviction, no hedging or mental prevarication; no making 'the wish father to the thought;' no fearing to arrive at a particular result. To think honestly, then, is to think freely; freedom and honesty of thought are truly but interchangeable terms. For how can he think honestly, who dreads his being landed in this or that conclusion? Such an one has already predetermined in his heart how he shall think, and what he shall believe. Perfect truth, like perfect love, casteth out fear."

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

"Nature speaks to us in a peculiar language; in the language of phenomena. She answers at all times the questions which are put to her; and such questions are experiments."

"Nature lies before us as a panorama; let us explore and find delight, she puts questions to us, and we may also question her; the answers may ofttimes be hard to spell, but no dreaded sphinx shall interfere when human wisdom falters."

We have an excellent example of a "Zetetic" process in an arithmetical operation, more especially so in what is called the "Golden Rule," or the "Rule of Three." If a hundredweight of any article costs a given sum, what will some other weight, less or more, be worth? The separate figures may be considered as the elements or facts in the inquiry; the placing and working of them as the logical arrangement of the evidence; and the quotient, or answer, as the fair and natural deduction,--the unavoidable or necessitated verdict. Hence, in every arithmetical or "Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

We have another example of the "Zetetic" process in our Courts of Justice. A prisoner is placed at the bar; evidence for and against him is demanded: when advanced it is carefully arranged and patiently considered. It is then presented to the Jury for solemn reconsideration, and whatever verdict is given, it is advanced as the unavoidable conclusion necessitated by the whole of the evidence. In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!

The "Zetetic" process is also the most natural method of investigation. Nature herself always teaches it; it is her own continual suggestion; children invariably seek information by asking questions, by earnestly inquiring from those around them. Fearlessly, anxiously, and without the slightest regard to consequences, question after question, in rapid and exciting succession, will often proceed from a child, until the most profound in learning and philosophy, will feel puzzled to reply; and often the searching cross-examinations of a mere natural tyro, can only be brought to an end by an order to retire--to bed--to school--to play--to anywhere--rather than that the fiery "Zetetic" ordeal shall be continued.

If then both Nature and justice, as well as the common sense and practical experience of mankind demand, and will not be content with less or other than the "Zetetic" process, why is it ignored and constantly violated by the learned in philosophy? What right have they to begin their disquisitions with fanciful data, and then to demand that, to these all surrounding phenomena be moulded. As private individuals they have, of course, a right to "do as they like with their own;" but as authors and public teachers their unnatural efforts are immeasurably pernicious. Like a poor animal tied to a stake in the centre of a meadow, where it can only feed in a limited circle, the theoretical philosopher is tethered to his premises, enslaved by his own assumptions, and however great his talent, his influence, his opportunities, he can only rob his fellow men of their intellectual freedom and independence, and convert them into slaves like him-self. In this respect astronomical science is especially faulty. It assumes the existence of certain data; it then applies these data to the explanation of certain phenomena. If the solution seems plausible it is considered that the data may be looked upon as proved--demonstrated by the apparently satisfactory explanation they have afforded. Facts, and explanations of a different character, are put aside as unworthy of regard; since that which is already assumed seems to explain matters, there need be no further concern. Guided by this principle, the secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society (Professor De Morgan, of Trinity College, Cambridge), reviewing a paper by the author, in the Athen?um, for March 25th, 1865, says: "The evidence that the earth is round is but cumulative and circumstantial; scores of phenomena ask, separately and independently, what other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" It is thus candidly admitted that there is no direct and positive evidence that the earth is round, that it is only "imagined" or assumed to be so in order to afford an explanation of "scores of phenomena." This is precisely the language of Copernicus, of Newton, and of all astronomers who have laboured to prove the rotundity of the earth. It is pitiful in the extreme that after so many ages of almost unopposed indulgence, philosophers instead of beginning to seek, before everything else, the true constitution of the physical world, are still to be seen labouring only to frame hypotheses, and to reconcile phenomena with imaginary and ever-shifting foundations. Their labour is simply to repeat and perpetuate the self-deception of their predecessors. Surely the day is not far distant when the very complications which their numerous theories have created, will startle them into wakefulness, and convince them that for long ages past they have but been idly dreaming! Time wasted, energies thrown away, truth obscured, and falsehood rampant, constitute a charge so grave that coming generations will look upon them as the bitterest enemies of civilisation, the heaviest drags on the wheels of progress, and the most offensive embodiment of frivolity, pride of learning, and canting formality; worse than this--by their position, their standing in the front ranks of learning, they deceive the public. They appear to represent a solid phalanx of truth and wisdom, when in reality they are but as the flimsy ice of an hour's induration--all surface, without substance, or depth, or reliability, or power to save from danger and ultimate destruction.

Let the practice of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.

If, to ascertain the true figure and condition of the earth, we adopt the "Zetetic" process, which truly is the only one sufficiently reliable, we shall find that instead of its being a globe--one of an infinite number of worlds moving on axes and in an orbit round the sun, it is the directly contrary--a Plane, without diurnal or progressive motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the firmament analogous to itself; or, in other words, that it is the only known material world.

Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2009, 04:22:31 PM

I've seen his work.  His interpretation of perspective is wrong.

You'll need to demonstrate it's wrong with contradicting evidence of your own.

Quote from: Galileo the Great on June 16, 2009, 05:54:45 AM

Hello,

i just read the FAQ and now have a question about this picture:



The question is:
Why can we observe a sunrise and a sunset if the sun moves like in the picture?
In the picture, the sun is always above the earth, and so it should be possible to watch it from everywhere on the earth at any time.

The earth rotates

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2009, 02:41:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2009, 04:22:31 PM

I've seen his work.  His interpretation of perspective is wrong.

You'll need to demonstrate it's wrong with contradicting evidence of your own.

Quote

Rowbothem lacked mathematical ability to explain this, so he elected to using drawings with generalised lines of perspective, similar to an artist's.

His draws tell us precisely nothing about exactly how large an object should appear at a given distance or when exactly it should "disappear".  Therefore any experimentation is worthless

Rowbotham does not prove through "drawings". He proves through direct experimentation with the material world. Please read Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe for additional information.

Rowbotham confuses reduced contrast with perspective.  They both provide visual cues for the brain to help discern distance, but they are two different concepts and should not be confused.

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2009, 08:51:02 PM

Rowbotham confuses reduced contrast with perspective.  They both provide visual cues for the brain to help discern distance, but they are two different concepts and should not be confused.

Rowbotham isn't "confusing" anything. Rowbotham demonstrates his contentions through test, trial, and experiment.

Rowbotham isn't giving us a hypothesis.

Rowbotham isn't giving us an idea.

Rowbotham isn't giving us a drawing.

Rowbotham is giving us a proof by DEMONSTRATING that the Vanishing Point is a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as hypothesized in geometry and art schools. Many experiments are tried with the material world to come to the truth of the matter.

Please read Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe to educate yourself on the matter.

Contrast and depth perception: effects of texture contrast and area contrast
Authors: Shigeru Ichihara, Norimichi Kitagawa, Hiromi Akutsu
Many objects in natural scenes have textures on their surfaces. Contrast of the texture surfaces (the texture contrast) reduces when the viewing distance increases. Similarly, contrast between the surfaces of the objects and the background (the area contrast) reduces when the viewing distance increases. The texture contrast and the area contrast were defined by the contrast between random dots, and by the contrast between the average luminance of the dot pattern and the luminance of the background, respectively. To examine how these two types of contrast influence depth perception, we ran two experiments. In both experiments two areas of random-dot patterns were presented against a uniform background, and participants rated relative depth between the two areas. We found that the rated depth of the patterned areas increased with increases in texture contrast. Furthermore, the effect of the texture contrast on depth judgment increased when the area contrast became low.

Yes you would be able to see infinitely away in the "real perspective". The only thing that stops us viewing the ideal, infinite perspective is when things get in the way. Either the land, or particles in the air.

Pasting chunks like that just makes you look like a moronic idiot. Especially when you do it over and over again.

Tom, if you don't understand the effects of contrast on depth perception, then I don't have the time or energy to teach you.  Maybe these will help:

Either way, he was demonstrably wrong. And so are you so long as you cling to Rowbotham.

Quote

Tom, if you don't understand the effects of contrast on depth perception, then I don't have the time or energy to teach you.  Maybe these will help:

I know the effects of contrast on depth perception decrease when viewing at a distance. Perception is finite. The Vanishing Point is a finite distance away. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated beyond all power of doubt that the Vanishing Point is a finite distance away and not an infinite distance away as assumed in geometric perspective.

Many tests and experiments are tried on the material world to come to the truth of the matter. The truth is that in perspective the material world ends at the Vanishing Point, and that it is a finite distance away from the observer.

You can learn about all of this and more in the text Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

can you please update Wikipedia, referencing the relevant extracts from EnaG.

What is the finite distance to the Vanishing Point?

Why? Is Wikipedia the arbiter of truth?

An ant has a Vanishing Point a dozen feet away.
A mouse has a Vanishing Point a few hundred feet away.
A man has a Vanishing Point about 30 miles away.
An eagle has a Vanishing Point over a hundred miles away.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your perspective lines in relation to the earth, pushing the vanishing point backwards. The higher up you go, the father you can see due to broadening perspective lines.

The horizon is ALWAYS at eye level with the horizon. When you increase your altitude the horizon line rises with the level of your eye and you can see lands and objects which were once squished and obscured at the horizon with indiscernity.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2009, 10:07:59 AM

Why? Is Wikipedia the arbiter of truth?

Not at all. 

I know you've spared use trouble of the working behind those numbers, but would you please make this person very happy by showing the working (especially the "mouse" figure).

I've been in an airplane, and I can tell you for certain that the horizon does not rise to eye level.  Even on the top of a mountain by the sea (Mt Seymour, 4,700ft), the horizon fails to rise to eye level.  I need to direct my gaze downwards in order to see the horizon in the center of my vision.  Hardly seems like always to me.

Horizon line - is always at eye level. Picture yourself at the seashore and looking out at the ocean you notice that the water meets the sky at your eye level. This never changes. You may be in an airplane 1000 feet up and the level that the ocean meets the sky is still at your eye level! Or you may be lying down on the beach and the ocean level drops with you. Think of it as an invisible plane that cuts through everything, that always exists at eye level.

Hint: Your horizon line always falls at eye level regardless of where you're looking. For instance, if you are looking down, your eye level remains at the height of your eyes, not down where you are looking.

Before we can assess the role of horizon information about size, we need to consider the different ways in which an observer can use the horizon. For a standing observer viewing objects on the same ground plane, the explicit or implicit horizon line intersects objects at the observer's eye height, thereby specifying the absolute size of the object as a multiple of the observer's eye height (Sedgwick, 1973). This size information is independent of the distance of the object from the observer.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on June 18, 2009, 12:38:47 PM

I've been in an airplane, and I can tell you for certain that the horizon does not rise to eye level.  Even on the top of a mountain by the sea (Mt Seymour, 4,700ft), the horizon fails to rise to eye level.  I need to direct my gaze downwards in order to see the horizon in the center of my vision.  Hardly seems like always to me.

The Vanishing Point (horizon) is always at eye level with the observer ... If we walk up a hill the horizon line changes and rises with our new eye level. In an airplane the horizon remains at eye level.

The horizon is ALWAYS at eye level with the horizon. When you increase your altitude the horizon line rises with the level of your eye and you can see lands and objects which were once squished and obscured at the horizon with indiscernity.

This mountain is 30 minutes away from where I live.  You're saying that when I take my camera and tripod (with a built in level) up there, and level it, aim it towards the ocean and take a picture, the horizon line will be centered in the image?  Is that the prediction you're making?  What if that isn't the case, what does that imply about this statement:

"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and balloon seemed to be stationary."

An ant has a Vanishing Point a dozen feet away.
A mouse has a Vanishing Point a few hundred feet away.
A man has a Vanishing Point about 30 miles away.
An eagle has a Vanishing Point over a hundred miles away.

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 18, 2009, 12:21:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2009, 10:07:59 AM

Why? Is Wikipedia the arbiter of truth?

Not at all.

Good, then there's no reason to contribute to it.

But Tom, you don't understand.  If you don't give me the working for a mouse's Vanishing Point of a few hundred feet then my genuine admiration of Robothem (and his misunderstood theories) will collapse.

I can completely understand your shyness for amending Wikipedia with the absolute and undeniable truth (and thus missing the opportunity to educate the wider population with news that Perspective has the ability to lower the Sun below the horizon).  Someone once told me that "God doesn't play dice with perspective"; They were not free thinkers and were constrained by the dogma of trigonometry and the inverse-tangent function.  A Wikipedia amendment would restore my confidence in The Truth.

Please reconsider,
Yours in anguish, MS.

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2009, 02:33:49 PM

Quote from: turtles on June 16, 2009, 02:25:59 PM

Nevermind the bendy light, what about this! If the sun has to follow its "orbit" around the sky once every 24 hours then during the northern summer it will have to go more slowly then during the southern summer when it has to follow a much larger circle. So we have a magic sun which can speed up and slow down at different times of the year, somehow losing and gaining huge amounts of inertial energy.

Either that or it moves across the sky much faster during the southern summer. Easily measureable.

Oops, Ive broken FET

still waiting...

Still waiting for what?

The fact of the horizon being at eye level is further confirmed here in the book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.

The concept of a vanishing point comes from artificial perspective, converging parallels, and the theory of the picture plane.  The vanishing limit of optical structure at the horizon comes from natural perspective, ecological optics, and the theory of the ambient optic array.  The two kinds of perspective should not be confused, although they have many principles in common (Chapter 5).

Quote

But Tom, you don't understand.  If you don't give me the working for a mouse's Vanishing Point of a few hundred feet then my genuine admiration of Robothem (and his misunderstood theories) will collapse.

You can learn all about the figures and concepts of perspective in the text Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Quote

I can completely understand your shyness for amending Wikipedia with the absolute and undeniable truth (and thus missing the opportunity to educate the wider population with news that Perspective has the ability to lower the Sun below the horizon).  Someone once told me that "God doesn't play dice with perspective"; They were not free thinkers and were constrained by the dogma of trigonometry and the inverse-tangent function.  A Wikipedia amendment would restore my confidence in The Truth.

Please reconsider,
Yours in anguish, MS.

Wikipedia articles have nothing to do with "truth".

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2009, 10:07:59 AM

Quote

What is the finite distance to the Vanishing Point?

That depends on what altitude you are at.

So you'll agree then that you're following statement is incorrect:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2009, 04:23:26 AM

The Vanishing Point is a finite distance away.

We're finally getting somewhere.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2009, 10:07:59 AM

Quote

What is the finite distance to the Vanishing Point?

That depends on what altitude you are at.

So you'll agree then that you're following statement is incorrect:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2009, 04:23:26 AM

The Vanishing Point is a finite distance away.

We're finally getting somewhere.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2009, 07:55:39 PM

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2009, 02:33:49 PM

Quote from: turtles on June 16, 2009, 02:25:59 PM

Nevermind the bendy light, what about this! If the sun has to follow its "orbit" around the sky once every 24 hours then during the northern summer it will have to go more slowly then during the southern summer when it has to follow a much larger circle. So we have a magic sun which can speed up and slow down at different times of the year, somehow losing and gaining huge amounts of inertial energy.

Either that or it moves across the sky much faster during the southern summer. Easily measureable.

Oops, Ive broken FET

still waiting...

Still waiting for what?

For an explanation for how this does not break FET. Unless the diagram in the OP is wrong and no longer FET canon?