i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt

However, a street light cannot project your shadow up onto a cloud that was directly above your head, unless the light itself was slightly lower than your head.

Again, in this case the mountain may be significantly tall, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

Here is an illustration:

As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The clouds will be 1/1000 the altitude of the FE sun. Their altitude would be insignificant.  It only works if you don't understand geometry.

Quote from: Kendrick on July 31, 2012, 01:40:23 PM

Nope.

The Transit of Venus disproves Rowbotham's perspective. 

Also - if Rowbotham was correct the sun would always be above the clouds and the mountain.

To explain that picture you would need to demonstrate how light can curve upwards away from the surface of the earth.

From the perspective of the cloud and the mountain, if you were to go up there, the sun would be a small ball on the horizon line. Hence the rays would not be coming from above.

The Transit of Venus proves Rowbothams assertion of perspective false. 

If the sun is shining below you while on the top of that mountain it is because the sun is really below you on the top of that mountain.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 02:00:31 PM

As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The clouds will be 1/1000 the altitude of the FE sun. Their altitude would be insignificant.  It only works if you don't understand geometry.

Consider: You can stand under or near a streetlight, which is no more than 20 feet in height. While you are standing under the streetlight you can simultaneously be looking at a plane in the distance which is 10,000+ feet in height, the plane in the distance seemingly lower than the 20 foot tall streetlight. How is this possible?

Answer: Perspective.

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 31, 2012, 02:07:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 02:00:31 PM

As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The clouds will be 1/1000 the altitude of the FE sun. Their altitude would be insignificant.  It only works if you don't understand geometry.

Consider: You can stand under or near a streetlight, which is no more than 20 feet in height. While you are standing under the streetlight you can simultaneously be looking at a plane in the distance which is 10,000+ feet in height, the plane in the distance seemingly lower than the 20 foot tall streetlight. How is this possible?

Answer: Perspective.

Again, rubbish. From the street light itself, the plane will still be above.  If the plane were to shine a laser light at the street lamp, it would not hit the underside of the lamp.

Your perspective diagram does not consider what the sun would look like from the position of the clouds. This is because it cannot be quantified and is only a first person depiction of a scene.  The irony is that you have been fooled by art school perspective, even though you denounce it regularly.

to are you actually this stupid? im mean honestly really? im not even going to waste my time and draw you a picture. why is it that everybody apart from you can see that the suns light an not a be parallel and b bend upwards due to perspective. it doesnt matter if on a flat plane that the sun appears to be on the horizon. the light is still coming from above you. the angle may not be a steep but it is not parallel and it most definitely does not not bend upwards due to perspective, which is what is needed to light the whole underside of the plane and the trail it leaves behind. the illusion would be that the sun looks parallel. why cant you understand this?
im going to drop out of this thread now, i cant talk about this to a complete moron any more, you cant even understand how a magnifying glass works! the last time i checked i didnt see children burning ants with a projector!

the next sunny day hold your hand out and look at the under side and notice how its in shadow.

next time its night have a street lamp far away but so it still illuminates you and hold you hand out and repeat.

instead of pretending to do stuff be a real zetetic and do some bloody work for yourself and get your head out of the arse of a long dead debater that was wrong.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 02:13:45 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 31, 2012, 02:07:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 02:00:31 PM

As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The clouds will be 1/1000 the altitude of the FE sun. Their altitude would be insignificant.  It only works if you don't understand geometry.

Consider: You can stand under or near a streetlight, which is no more than 20 feet in height. While you are standing under the streetlight you can simultaneously be looking at a plane in the distance which is 10,000+ feet in height, the plane in the distance seemingly lower than the 20 foot tall streetlight. How is this possible?

Answer: Perspective.

Again, rubbish. From the street light itself, the plane will still be above.  If the plane were to shine a laser light at the street lamp, it would not hit the underside of the lamp.

I do believe that light from the plane would hit the underside of a street lamp through perspective. Consider this thought experiment --

We have a flying saucer 5000 feet in altitude over our heads flying away from us.



When the flying saucer is directly overhead of us and we look upwards  we are looking at it from the bottom and will see a circle. As the flying saucer moves away from us into the distance perspective will cause the saucer to slowly reorient itself to be parallel to the observer until, when sufficiently far, it will appear as if we are looking at the flying saucer from the side. Most people will agree that this will occur when a body passes by overhead and recedes into the distance.

But as we are looking at the saucer from the side in the distance, how can it be that we can see the top compartment bubble of the craft if the saucer it is 5000 feet above us? In order for us to see the top bubble of the flying saucer light must be passing from the top of the saucer to our eyes 5000 feet below. How could this be?

The answer is that the flying saucer is in the distance and perspective reoriented the flying saucer so that light rays could pass from the top of the flying saucer to observers 5000 feet below it.

In this same manner, due to the reorienting nature of perspective, light from a plane in the distance can hit the underside (but not opposite side) of a streetlight.

There is something wrong with the clouds in this picture - lets see if you can figure out what it is.

hint - it has to do with perspective.

I do believe that light from the plane would hit the underside of a street lamp through perspective. Consider this thought experiment --

We have a flying saucer 5000 feet in altitude over our heads flying away from us.



When the flying saucer is directly overhead of us and we look upwards  we are looking at it from the bottom and will see a circle. As the flying saucer moves away from us into the distance perspective will cause the saucer to slowly reorient itself to be parallel to the observer until, when sufficiently far, it will appear as if we are looking at the flying saucer from the side. Most people will agree that this will occur when a body passes by overhead and recedes into the distance.

But as we are looking at the saucer from the side in the distance, how can it be that we can see the top compartment bubble of the craft if the saucer it is 5000 feet above us? In order for us to see the top bubble of the flying saucer light must be passing from the top of the saucer to our eyes 5000 feet below.

The answer is that the flying saucer is in the distance and perspective reoriented the flying saucer so that light rays could pass from the top of the flying saucer to observers 5000 feet below it.

In this same manner, light from a plane in the distance can hit the underside of a streetlight.

Tom, while I appreciate the time you have taken to set out this thought experiment, it does not follow that being able to see the top of the saucer at a distance means that laser light rays from a plane can bend around and strike the bottom of the street light from up above.  You have taking basic perspective properties and stretching them beyond reality.

Consider this thought experiment:  The pilot in the distant plane (at altitude) looks through a telescope at the street lamp.  He cannot see the under side of it because he is at a much greater height.  He shines a laser at the street light and observes the laser spotlight striking the top of the street light.  Because light travels in straight lines, in reality there is no way for the light to strike the bottom of the street light without bending, which is beyond reality.

Perspective is a first-person experience.  The street lights, clouds and mountains see the FE sun at almost the same elevation, because it is so far away.   You simply cannot use perspective lines to predict other objects' illumination.  You are taking art school perspective beyond its limits.

I cannot be bothered to draw a scale diagram. In any case it would be wasted on your dogmatic, impenetrable, fundamentalist beliefs.

This is getting redundant. There's no point to this. Tom reported for trolling.

This is getting redundant. There's no point to this. Tom reported for trolling.

For a troll, Tom sure goes to a lot of effort.  I think he's genuine.  Shoot me down in flames if you must.

Whether he's genuine or not, his stubborness and stupidity amount to trolling, because he will not accept that he has been discounted and discredited, even if it's from several different angles, and even if it's by OTHER FE PROPONENTS.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 01, 2012, 05:57:43 AM

This is getting redundant. There's no point to this. Tom reported for trolling.

For a troll, Tom sure goes to a lot of effort.  I think he's genuine.  Shoot me down in flames if you must.

im starting to doubt that he is genuine. i thought he was a bit nutty before this thread. how can anyone take him seriously now?
well he tried to discredit my findings but discredited himself further.
funny thing is that if he was genuine he is sat there thinking we are all stupid!
i love it you can present somebody with observations that are made in the most zetetic of fashions and they can still deny that you are right and go out and make up reality to match their ideas. tom is a fraud, i said i wouldnt post in the thread again but i couldnt help myself.
i should just ignore the crazy man in the corner

you cant see the top of the alien space ship. you see some of the side and under side. mind you, you do have a magic telescope 

I can't see the top of a flying saucer because I've never seen one. I've seen something flying up really high at night that was... strange. But not necessarily a saucer. So no, I cannot see the top of it.

i have devised an experiment to do to debunk toms wild ideas. if i can get somebody to help me ill do it and post pictures.

Tom, while I appreciate the time you have taken to set out this thought experiment, it does not follow that being able to see the top of the saucer at a distance means that laser light rays from a plane can bend around and strike the bottom of the street light from up above.  You have taking basic perspective properties and stretching them beyond reality.

I've provided illustrations for my explanation:

Firstly, it cannot be denied that when an overhead body flies into the distance, you will eventually be viewing its side.



In the above image the flying saucer recedes into the distance until, at a far off point, it appears that we are looking at it from the side. Perspective has reoriented the craft so that rays are reaching from the TOP bubble compartment of the saucer to our eyes, despite being at a lower altitude than the craft. If the cockpit had a clear glass window we could see inside.

Replacing the eye with a street light...



Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

According to your drawing the saucer pilot would only be able to see the bottom edge of the profile of the lamp, not the underside of the lamp.  Even if the light rays were parallel in reality (they aren't), they wouldn't provide a line-of-sight to the underside of the lamp.

tom thats a thought experiment. give me a few days and i can prove you wrong with photographic evidence.
of course we can see the side as you first stated. however you do not see under an object as you get further away.

have you done an experiment to show this already? and no using the sun does not count because you already presume that the earth is a plane so the experiment is void as a zetetic experiment.

im going to use a 5 mw green laser and try and put the dot on the underside of a sheet of card or something. i will hold the laser at about 5 feet 300 yards or so away with the card 6 inches off the floor. i can then demonstrate that you are mistaken.

i really feel sorry for you if you really believe what you post on this forum.

This is getting redundant. There's no point to this. Tom reported for trolling.

Please don't abuse the report function.  Tom didn't break any rules in that post.

..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2012, 07:54:35 PM

..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

His diagram is not correct. That's Like saying I can see the other side of a brick wall I'm looking at. Or the top of a plane when I'm under it. Or the other side of a car because I'm at an angle. Or If I shine a flashlight at the car, I'll be able to see what's on the other side. This does not make any sense.

His diagram is not correct. That's Like saying I can see the other side of a brick wall I'm looking at. Or the top of a plane when I'm under it. Or the other side of a car because I'm at an angle. Or If I shine a flashlight at the car, I'll be able to see what's on the other side. This does not make any sense.

Tom's childish diagram is sufficiently crude to allow for the possibility that the "bulb" part of his streetlight hangs down below the "shade" part to allow a line of sight from a bog-standard flying saucer in the distance.

However things are so ill-defined (unzetetic?) that this is not clear.  I am trying to establish exactly what is going on, which without standard geometry is a challenge.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 02, 2012, 06:10:19 AM

His diagram is not correct. That's Like saying I can see the other side of a brick wall I'm looking at. Or the top of a plane when I'm under it. Or the other side of a car because I'm at an angle. Or If I shine a flashlight at the car, I'll be able to see what's on the other side. This does not make any sense.

Tom's childish diagram is sufficiently crude to allow for the possibility that the "bulb" part of his streetlight hangs down below the "shade" part to allow a line of sight from a bog-standard flying saucer in the distance.

However things are so ill-defined (unzetetic?) that this is not clear.  I am trying to establish exactly what is going on, which without standard geometry is a challenge.

Tom is trying to reinforce the fact that somehow a light above something will illuminate the bottom of the object, casting shadows upwards, by using twisting perspective rules to his own satisfaction in an attempt to fit his model. I can see some of the side of something that is above me if it is distant. I certainly cannot see the top of it. I cannot shine a light down on something and expect to illuminate the underside.

Quote from: Moon squirter on August 01, 2012, 12:21:53 AM

Tom, while I appreciate the time you have taken to set out this thought experiment, it does not follow that being able to see the top of the saucer at a distance means that laser light rays from a plane can bend around and strike the bottom of the street light from up above.  You have taking basic perspective properties and stretching them beyond reality.

I've provided illustrations for my explanation:

Firstly, it cannot be denied that when an overhead body flies into the distance, you will eventually be viewing its side.



In the above image the flying saucer recedes into the distance until, at a far off point, it appears that we are looking at it from the side. Perspective has reoriented the craft so that rays are reaching from the TOP bubble compartment of the saucer to our eyes, despite being at a lower altitude than the craft. If the cockpit had a clear glass window we could see inside.

Replacing the eye with a street light...



Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

These diagrams are hilariously incorrect for many reasons - among them being that perspective does not automatically cause an object high above to physically drop in altitude as it moves away.

I've provided illustrations for my explanation:

Firstly, it cannot be denied that when an overhead body flies into the distance, you will eventually be viewing its side.

Tom, you forgot to show the saucer getting smaller as it approaches its "vanishing point".  Also, the saucer would not linearly approach the observer's line of sight.  Rather, it would approach asymptotically.

These diagrams are hilariously incorrect for many reasons - among them being that perspective does not automatically cause an object high above to physically drop in altitude as it moves away.

Tom is right. An object will eventually be parallel to the viewer's eye level if it travels far enough. You would be able to see the side of an object at this point. This is because as the Earth curves the plane begins to sink below the horizon as it keeps the same altitude above the ground.

What Tom described is perfect round earth perspective for very distant objects.
On a flat Earth, the plane would shrink to the vanishing point in the middle of your vision, merging with the horizon but never being visible from the side.ike taking a picture and shrinking it down. This is called One-point perspective.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2012, 07:54:35 PM

..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom (which is parallel to the ground):
  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

Tom, have you got an answer to my question above?

Quote from: Kendrick on August 02, 2012, 09:14:48 AM

These diagrams are hilariously incorrect for many reasons - among them being that perspective does not automatically cause an object high above to physically drop in altitude as it moves away.

Tom is right. An object will eventually be parallel to the viewer's eye level if it travels far enough. You would be able to see the side of an object at this point. This is because as the Earth curves the plane begins to sink below the horizon as it keeps the same altitude above the ground.

What Tom described is perfect round earth perspective for very distant objects.
On a flat Earth, the plane would shrink to the vanishing point in the middle of your vision, merging with the horizon but never being visible from the side.ike taking a picture and shrinking it down. This is called One-point perspective.

Well actually, you wouldn't see the side of the object still yet, because if this "saucer" operates anything like a real aircraft, it's underside must remain oriented towards the gravitational pull to maintain flight, or it will plummet out of the sky. You may see some of the side, but certainly not the whole side. Mostly you will see the bottom.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2012, 07:54:35 PM

..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

No, it wouldn't see the underside of that flat bottomed streetlight.

Quote from: Moon squirter on August 02, 2012, 05:56:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2012, 07:54:35 PM

..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

No, it wouldn't see the underside of that flat bottomed streetlight.

It wouldn't see the underside of a round bottomed one either. Not unless it was under it.