Flat Earth model of sun's movement is false

Please explain how those images prove that the senses are inaccurate.

What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.

This contradicts bendy light.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2010, 04:46:13 PM

What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.

This contradicts bendy light.

Bendy Light isn't real and that has been proven a zillion times. Not all FE'ers believe in bendy light.

Please explain how those images prove that the senses are inaccurate.

You can read a sentence in the first image, where there's actually no letters written, our brain interprets the blank spaces our eyes see like if there were letters.
In the second image, with the same graph, you can either form a 13, or a capitalised B, depending on the context.

Therefore, brain sometimes get into conflict with senses, and because of that, senses are not entirely trustful.

You're making certain assumptions about the size of the sun's spotlight, the size of the sun's orbit around the northern hub, and the size and layout of the map.

Quite amusing. I have never laughed so hard in my life.
Please show us all an accurate FE map.
Show on that map where the spot light shines in both hemispheres for summer and winter, time zones and such like.
Don't forget that map, so that we don't have to assume its layout.
Sorry what was that, no map!

Ha ha ha

Quote from: Verrine on November 17, 2010, 03:00:26 PM

Please explain how those images prove that the senses are inaccurate.

You can read a sentence in the first image, where there's actually no letters written, our brain interprets the blank spaces our eyes see like if there were letters.
In the second image, with the same graph, you can either form a 13, or a capitalised B, depending on the context.

Therefore, brain sometimes get into conflict with senses, and because of that, senses are not entirely trustful.

Okay what does the top sentence say?  I can't get anything out of it.
The B and 13 I get but not the top one.

Berny
Stared till his eyes watered

Quote from: Verrine on November 17, 2010, 03:00:26 PM

Please explain how those images prove that the senses are inaccurate.

You can read a sentence in the first image, where there's actually no letters written, our brain interprets the blank spaces our eyes see like if there were letters.
In the second image, with the same graph, you can either form a 13, or a capitalised B, depending on the context.

Therefore, brain sometimes get into conflict with senses, and because of that, senses are not entirely trustful.

The black spaces are shapes. The blank spaces are shapes. Letters are just shapes we recognise as certain symbols. You can make that argument about any piece of writing. For example, there are no letters in this post, just black gaps. Ta da! This proves nothing about the reliability of our senses.

  I am confused here. How do you conclusively detect that the Sun is the one that moves? It is like the situation where you are in some sort of vehicle which moves and you stand still and the other things appear to move. In the case of the Sun and the Earth you don't have absolutely any visual or any other evidence that the Sun is the one that moves actually and not the Earth.

Yes, but to my senses it appears as though the Sun is moving. Sensory evidence is all we're accepting, remember?

I wanted to know how can you say that the earth is flat when it actually can be round or whatever other shape. It is quite clear and can be showed with simple models

I stopped reading here. The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen. When you introduce anything else in an attempt to disprove my argument, you lose.

The black spaces are shapes. The blank spaces are shapes. Letters are just shapes we recognise as certain symbols. You can make that argument about any piece of writing. For example, there are no letters in this post, just black gaps. Ta da! This proves nothing about the reliability of our senses.

You don't seem to know very well what a gap is, but here I am to enlighten you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gap

I can also teach you what a "letter" is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/letter

So you see, by definition and logic, a letter can never be a gap. We can make up letters from gaps, as in my example, but in a real writen text, the spaces between letters are gaps. Get your concepts straight before argumenting.

@Berny_74, I can't say if you are smartly joking, or if you are serious. I really hope it's the first one, haha.

The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen.

Go to the Gower Peninsula, Wales.
Look towards Ireland.
Can you see Ireland?
No.
Direct sensorial evidence is telling you Ireland is not visible.
If Ireland merely lay across a big flat expanse of sea, it should be visibly sticking up in the distance. If Ireland lay across a curve, you would not see it.
Therefore, your sensorial evidence tells you the earth DOESNT look flat. It looks like a big curved surface.

@Berny_74, I can't say if you are smartly joking, or if you are serious. I really hope it's the first one, haha.

No seriously - the first one I cannot make heads or tails.  The 12/13/14/a/b/c was easy - but the one above it I see nothing.  If I trace manually I think the first line is NO SEX.  Its not like anything pops out at me.

Berny
Wonders if Kira is pulling my tail

Yes, but to my senses it appears as though the Sun is moving. Sensory evidence is all we're accepting, remember?

So when you walk, the Earth appears as though it's moving and not you, right? You make astounding conclusion based on your senses.

Berny, it says "NO SEX CAUSES BAD EYES".

Berny, it says "NO SEX CAUSES BAD EYES".

Okay haven't had any for a year.
Maybe that's why.
But really - it does not jump out at me.  After you said it I can trace it out.

Berny
Anyone want to help me out?

Quote from: Kira-SY on November 18, 2010, 10:40:56 AM

Berny, it says "NO SEX CAUSES BAD EYES".

Okay haven't had any for a year.
Maybe that's why.
But really - it does not jump out at me.  After you said it I can trace it out.

Berny
Anyone want to help me out?

It's not supposed to jump out at you.  That's the whole point. 

Quote from: zork on November 16, 2010, 11:46:10 PM

  I am confused here. How do you conclusively detect that the Sun is the one that moves? It is like the situation where you are in some sort of vehicle which moves and you stand still and the other things appear to move. In the case of the Sun and the Earth you don't have absolutely any visual or any other evidence that the Sun is the one that moves actually and not the Earth.

Yes, but to my senses it appears as though the Sun is moving. Sensory evidence is all we're accepting, remember?

But there is no sensory evidence that the Sun is the one moving. And that kind of situation is easily reproducible with you and moving vehicles. 

Quote from: zork on November 16, 2010, 11:46:10 PM

I wanted to know how can you say that the earth is flat when it actually can be round or whatever other shape. It is quite clear and can be showed with simple models

I stopped reading here. The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen. When you introduce anything else in an attempt to disprove my argument, you lose.

I see. Then the Sun really goes below the Earth. And it really is where you see it to be. It is direct sensorial evidence. If you don't accept that then you have no right to ask direct sensorial evidence from anyone. So, how it is. Does the Sun go below the Earth or not?

The Earth appears to be generally flat no matter where I go. Yet the apparent movements of the Sun and the distrabution of light are in conflict with this. One of the bodies thus cannot be as it appears to be. The greater proximity of the Earth and the greater sensorial evidence associated with it lead me to conclude that it is more likely that the Sun's movements are not as they appear to be. This is especially likely given the abundence of optical anomalies associeted with light (atmospheric refraction etc.)

Very good, but can you come up with a coherent and testable theory which explains how the sun moves and appears to move, and which explains why there is a difference between the two (and similarly for the moon and the stars)?
Because we RE-ers CAN explain which shape the Earth has, and why it appears to be flat. Our explanations fit all observations of the Earth and the celestial objects perfectly. Therefore, as long as you FE-ers cannot come up with a better theory, we should accept that the Earth is round.

From the afformentioned first principles? The Earth appears to be generally flat no matter where I go. Yet the apparent movements of the Sun and the distrabutiondistribution of light are in conflict with this. One of the bodies thus cannot be as it appears to be. The greater proximity of the Earth and the greater sensorial evidence associated with it lead me to conclude that it is more likely that the Sun's movements are not as they appear to be. This is especially likely given the abundenceabundance of optical anomalies associetedassociated with light (atmospheric refraction etc.)

So despite first principles, you make conclusions. Why would you ignore first principles in this case and conclude something for which you have no direct sensorial evidence?

You don't seem to know very well what a gap is, but here I am to enlighten you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gap

I can also teach you what a "letter" is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/letter

So you see, by definition and logic, a letter can never be a gap. We can make up letters from gaps, as in my example, but in a real writen text, the spaces between letters are gaps. Get your concepts straight before argumenting.

Perhaps you should get your concepts straight:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol

A symbol is something such as an object, picture, written word, sound, or particular mark that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention . . . All language consists of symbols.

And what did I say?

The black spaces are shapes. The blank spaces are shapes. Letters are just shapes we recognise as certain symbols.

Please tell me how you differentiate between the gaps and the characters in the image you posted. I eagerly await your explanation.

If Ireland merely lay across a big flat expanse of sea, it should be visibly sticking up in the distance.

No:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28visual%29

So when you walk, the Earth appears as though it's moving and not you, right? You make [an] astounding conclusion based on your senses.

My senses don't tell me that the Earth is moving. It feels like I'm moving, therefore I am.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 10:23:53 AM

So when you walk, the Earth appears as though it's moving and not you, right? You make [an] astounding conclusion based on your senses.

My senses don't tell me that the Earth is moving. It feels like I'm moving, therefore I am.

Please tell me how it feels like you're moving and not the Earth. That sounds like another conclusion based on logical and not first principles.

Please tell me how it feels like you're moving and not the Earth. That sounds like another conclusion based on logical and not first principles.

It just feels like it. I feel like I'm moving, the Earth doesn't. It's sensorial evidence, so I can't really go beyond that in explaining it.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 19, 2010, 07:57:24 AM

Please tell me how it feels like you're moving and not the Earth. That sounds like another conclusion based on logical and not first principles.

It just feels like it. I feel like I'm moving, the Earth doesn't. It's sensorial evidence, so I can't really go beyond that in explaining it.

So you're going with a 'feeling' rather than evidence. Noted.

Perhaps you should get your concepts straight:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol

Quote

A symbol is something such as an object, picture, written word, sound, or particular mark that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention . . . All language consists of symbols.

And what did I say?

Well, you said: "For example, there are no letters in this post, just black gaps."

And I was explaining how that sentence is a nonsense. I don't know where you took all that symbol stuff from. I agree with all that.

Please tell me how you differentiate between the gaps and the characters in the image you posted. I eagerly await your explanation.

Well if I could do that, I wouldn't use the image as an example of the trickery of our senses, right? That was the key.

But really - it does not jump out at me.  After you said it I can trace it out.

Berny
Anyone want to help me out?

You must adjust your eyes to look so that you can read the text. It's like stereogram picture, for example http://www.smart-kit.com/s280/stereograms-overide-normal-brain-and-eye-function/
 

Well, you said: "For example, there are no letters in this post, just black gaps."

And I was explaining how that sentence is a nonsense. I don't know where you took all that symbol stuff from. I agree with all that.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2010, 07:52:51 AM

Please tell me how you differentiate between the gaps and the characters in the image you posted. I eagerly await your explanation.

Well if I could do that, I wouldn't use the image as an example of the trickery of our senses, right? That was the key.

If you cannot tell me how you differentiate between gaps and letters in that image, then you cannot tell me that the statement "there are no letters in this post, just black gaps" is nonsense. On what basis do you conclude that it is nonsense if you cannot explain how you differentiate between the letters and gaps in this or any other post?


The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.

The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.

So you agree then that everything you see isn't always exactly like it seems to be?

So you're going with a 'feeling' rather than evidence. Noted.

Uh, by 'feeling' I obviously mean sensation. It feels like I am moving, hence this is direct sensorial evidence.

So you agree then that everything you see isn't always exactly like it seems to be?

I have never disputed this.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 19, 2010, 08:07:24 AM

So you're going with a 'feeling' rather than evidence. Noted.

Uh, by 'feeling' I obviously mean sensation. It feels like I am moving, hence this is direct sensorial evidence.

So, tell us how you feel that you're moving in an elevator once it's no longer accelerating? Are you under then misconception that your senses can tell you when you're moving, vice accelerating?

Movement in an elevator has nothing to do with the Sun's movements. Please stay on topic, as we're already having this discussion in three separate threads across the forum.

Quote from: zork on November 19, 2010, 08:51:04 AM

So you agree then that everything you see isn't always exactly like it seems to be?

I have never disputed this.

Then there is only thing do deduce. That you may very well to have belief in things that aren't true.
EDIT:
 Including the shape of the Earth. But yes, I know what you say. If no other evidence is presented. But there is and you just deny that.

You can say that about anyone!