FAQ - volunteers needed!

Quote

Tom, hypotheses are often components of a greater theory.  EAT is a component of some FET models.

Not the conventional model.

Which one is the conventional model again?

Quote

Again, I believe that all FET models should be summarized in the FAQ and expanded upon in the wiki.

I don't. It creates confusion between the real model and someone's fantasy model.

Who is to say which is the 'real' model and which one is the 'fantasy' model?

Quote

Even though I'm an RE'er, I firmly that this is the a good way way to promote and advance FET.

I don't see how FET is going to advance by introducing a fantasy hypothesis. To consider without evidence is exactly the sort of thing Samuel Birley Rowbotham cautions us about in the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe.

Speculations must be backed with evidence before they can be considered.

Then it should be pointed out which model is considered to be 'official' and which ones are speculative and why.

Quote

Just because you don't agree with EAT or sky mirrors, that doesn't mean that they don't belong in the FAQ.

EAT, having no evidence what-so-ever, is at odds with Rowbotham's perspective model which already explains the Sinking Ship and other phenomena just fine. There is evidence supporting Rowbotham's perspective model. There is no evidence supporting EAT.

I see absolutely no reason to introduce a fantasy hypothesis to compete with conventional Flat Earth Theory. There is already a mechanism which has positive evidence behind it.

Evidence > No Evidence

Once some sort of evidence has been collected to suggest EAT, it can be considered as an alternative. Introducing it into the FAQ suggests that it is an alternative when it is not.

Something with no evidence can never be an alternative to something with evidence.

I am also unhappy that last year someone added a passage to the FAQ which states that the planets and celestial bodies may be flat disks. That's another fantasy hypothesis without evidence. It has caused a surge of people reading the FAQ assuming that the Flat Earth Model proposes a world with disk-like sun, moon, and planets.

It does not. The Flat Earth Model does not say anything of the sort. That is just someone's wild fantasy they've speculated upon without showing any evidence what-so-ever.

Like I said, just because you or Rowbotham don't agree with the theory, that doesn't make it wrong.  Progress can't happen without at least some wild speculation every now and then.

the sun is at such a height that its angle from the horizon would be too large to be explained by Rowbotham's perspective

Why not?

Assume the FE distance from the north pole to the equator is 7,000 miles and that the height of the sun is 3000 miles.  In summer the sun is going around the FE equator.

At midnight the FE sun would be 14,000 miles away from the observer, 3000 miles up.

That would be tan^-1 (3000/14000) degrees = 12^o above the horizon [at midnight!!].

That's what would happen in conventional (art school) perspective.

But it's a good thing we know that conventional perspective is not true and does not reflect reality.

Which one is the conventional model again?

The traditional one.

Who is to say which is the 'real' model and which one is the 'fantasy' model?

The real model is the one with evidence behind it. The fantasy model is the one without evidence.

Then it should be pointed out which model is considered to be 'official' and which ones are speculative and why.

The official model is official because it has been demonstrated.

The fantasy models have no demonstration what-so-ever, and thus remain fantasies.

There is no need to create confusion in the FAQ by mixing fantasy with reality.

Like I said, just because you or Rowbotham don't agree with the theory, that doesn't make it wrong.  Progress can't happen without at least some wild speculation every now and then.

Wild speculation does not help to progress anything.

Demonstration and accumulated evidence does, however.

Tom, if feel so strongly about it, then maybe you should be the one to tell Dogplatter, Username, Raa and Levee that they are wrong in their interpretation of FET.

Tom, if feel so strongly about it, then maybe you should be the one to tell Dogplatter, Username, Raa and Levee that they are wrong in their interpretation of FET.

They know how I feel about it. I tell them the same things I tell RE'ers on the main boards:

Demonstrate it or get out.

Quote from: markjo on February 08, 2010, 12:47:48 PM

Tom, if feel so strongly about it, then maybe you should be the one to tell Dogplatter, Username, Raa and Levee that they are wrong in their interpretation of FET.

They know how I feel about it. I tell them the same things I tell RE'ers on the main boards:

Demonstrate it or get out.

Funny, we keep telling you the same thing about your Monterrey Bay observations.  But that's getting off topic.

Quote

the sun is at such a height that its angle from the horizon would be too large to be explained by Rowbotham's perspective

Why not?

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 16, 2009, 02:37:44 PM

Assume the FE distance from the north pole to the equator is 7,000 miles and that the height of the sun is 3000 miles.  In summer the sun is going around the FE equator.

At midnight the FE sun would be 14,000 miles away from the observer, 3000 miles up.

That would be tan^-1 (3000/14000) degrees = 12^o above the horizon [at midnight!!].

That's what would happen in conventional (art school) perspective.

But it's a good thing we know that conventional perspective is not true and does not reflect reality.

'Rowbotham's persepective' only applies when the angle of the object to the ground is very small.  If Rowbotham's perspective could make the 12 degrees the sun should appear above the horizon appear to be 0, then a 100m tower would disappear from only 500m away and a 15 cm vertical pencil held 75 cm from the edge of the table would disappear when viewed from the edge; these situations have exactly the same geometry.  Thus, we can conclude that Rowbotham's persepective cannot provide an adequate explanation.

Funny, we keep telling you the same thing about your Motnerrey Bay observations.

It was demonstrated with my own account and testimony.

'Rowbotham's persepective' only applies when the angle of the object to the ground is very small.

Rowbotham's perspective informs us that perspective is fundamentally different to what we learned in art school.

The Art School perspective is untested and unproven. It's someone's imagination for how geometric perspective should work.

The only true perspective comes from studying the world around us, which Samuel Birley Robotham has done verbatim in his text Earth Not a Globe.

If Rowbotham's perspective could make the 12 degrees the sun should appear above the horizon appear to be 0, then a 100m tower would disappear from only 500m away and a 15 cm vertical pencil held 75 cm from the edge of the table would disappear when viewed from the edge; these situations have exactly the same geometry.  Thus, we can conclude that Rowbotham's persepective cannot provide an adequate explanation.

What makes you think that the effect can be reproduced on a kitchen table?

An arbitrary assumption.

Quote

the sun is at such a height that its angle from the horizon would be too large to be explained by Rowbotham's perspective

Why not?

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 16, 2009, 02:37:44 PM

Assume the FE distance from the north pole to the equator is 7,000 miles and that the height of the sun is 3000 miles.  In summer the sun is going around the FE equator.

At midnight the FE sun would be 14,000 miles away from the observer, 3000 miles up.

That would be tan^-1 (3000/14000) degrees = 12^o above the horizon [at midnight!!].

It's what would happen in conventional (art school) perspective;  Quite the opposite.

But it's a good thing we know that conventional perspective is not true and does not reflect reality.

Tom,

That's got nothing to do with art school perspective.  It's simple geometry / trigonometry:


Are you saying that the angle changes at full scale   Surely not.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 08, 2010, 12:26:12 PM

Quote

the sun is at such a height that its angle from the horizon would be too large to be explained by Rowbotham's perspective

Why not?

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 16, 2009, 02:37:44 PM

Assume the FE distance from the north pole to the equator is 7,000 miles and that the height of the sun is 3000 miles.  In summer the sun is going around the FE equator.

At midnight the FE sun would be 14,000 miles away from the observer, 3000 miles up.

That would be tan^-1 (3000/14000) degrees = 12^o above the horizon [at midnight!!].

It's what would happen in conventional (art school) perspective;  Quite the opposite.

But it's a good thing we know that conventional perspective is not true and does not reflect reality.

Tom,

That's got nothing to do with art school perspective.  It's simple geometry / trigonometry:


Are you saying that the angle changes at full scale  Surely not.

Geometric/Art School Perspective is wrong.

The perspective taught in geometry class is wrong.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Quote from: Moon squirter on February 09, 2010, 01:09:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 08, 2010, 12:26:12 PM

Quote

the sun is at such a height that its angle from the horizon would be too large to be explained by Rowbotham's perspective

Why not?

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 16, 2009, 02:37:44 PM

Assume the FE distance from the north pole to the equator is 7,000 miles and that the height of the sun is 3000 miles.  In summer the sun is going around the FE equator.

At midnight the FE sun would be 14,000 miles away from the observer, 3000 miles up.

That would be tan^-1 (3000/14000) degrees = 12^o above the horizon [at midnight!!].

It's what would happen in conventional (art school) perspective;  Quite the opposite.

But it's a good thing we know that conventional perspective is not true and does not reflect reality.

Tom,

That's got nothing to do with art school perspective.  It's simple geometry / trigonometry:


Are you saying that the angle changes at full scale  Surely not.

Geometric/Art School Perspective is wrong.

The perspective taught in geometry class is wrong.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

That is not "Art School Perspective";  It's simple geometry / Trigonometry.    Art students are not taught how to produce scale drawings.

Again:  Are you saying that the 12^o angle changes at full scale      When you have answer this question we can continue the debate.

I'm curious Tom, what trajectory does the light take in Rowbotham's perspective?

Isn't the idea behind it that the angle of an object to the ground becomes so small that it is beyond resolution of the eye and thus appears to "sink" into the horizon?  12 degrees is clearly within our resolution.

Guys, I think that we're drifting off topic again.

OK - I'll probably raise this as a new topic seeing as I've never received a sensible/coherent answer.

Bendy light can be deduced from the available evidence.

No, bendy light can be deduced from assumed evidence, i.e. that the shape of the earth is flat. Something for which there is no evidence itself. Bendy light rests on a house of cards.
I'd also be interested to know how bendy light manages to keep stars the same distance apart whether they are near the horizon or near the zenith. There's a whole load about that in another thread and no FE'er was able to explain it. Since you think of yourself as the expert on bendy light, I have no doubt you can contribute an explanation.

Quote from: Euclid on February 08, 2010, 02:09:59 AM

Bendy light can be deduced from the available evidence.

No, bendy light can be deduced from assumed evidence, i.e. that the shape of the earth is flat. Something for which there is no evidence itself. Bendy light rests on a house of cards.
I'd also be interested to know how bendy light manages to keep stars the same distance apart whether they are near the horizon or near the zenith. There's a whole load about that in another thread and no FE'er was able to explain it. Since you think of yourself as the expert on bendy light, I have no doubt you can contribute an explanation.

And seeing as you've been here long enough to know what this board is for, I have no doubt you can ask somewhere else if you really want to know.


There's already a debate going on about perspective vs BLT in the debate board, so I'd like everyone to get back on topic.

That is not "Art School Perspective";  It's simple geometry / Trigonometry.    Art students are not taught how to produce scale drawings.

Geometric perspective is wrong. Learn to read.

Geometric perspective is wrong.

Care to cite any authority other than Rowbotham to support that claim?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2010, 02:22:49 AM

Geometric perspective is wrong.

Care to cite any authority other than Rowbotham to support that claim?

Thomas Winship,
Lady Blount,
Samuel Shenton,
Charles K. Johnson,

all maintained the same thing.

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2010, 06:36:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2010, 02:22:49 AM

Geometric perspective is wrong.

Care to cite any authority other than Rowbotham to support that claim?

Thomas Winship,
Lady Blount,
Samuel Shenton,
Charles K. Johnson,

all maintained the same thing.

I held my thumb close to my face and my other hand as far away as my arm would let me. My thumb must be HUGE!

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2010, 06:36:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2010, 02:22:49 AM

Geometric perspective is wrong.

Care to cite any authority other than Rowbotham to support that claim?

Thomas Winship,
Lady Blount,
Samuel Shenton,
Charles K. Johnson,

all maintained the same thing.

And what are their credentials in the field of optics?  Oh, and please cite where they explain how geometric perspective is wrong.