Rethinking Perspective

  • 87 Replies
  • 8760 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #60 on: November 29, 2017, 03:40:37 AM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
No we don't!
Refraction usually makes the sun on the horizon appear about 0.5 higher not lower.
This is quite negligible when considering all the extra you need to explain sunsets in your pancake planet.

That doesn't help your silly ideas about sunset one little bit.

If you disagree, please post something better than empty words from empty skulls.

Please, try again.  Refraction does not care about which direction is up, down, left or right.
It certainly looks as though you have nothing "better than empty words from your empty skulls.

"Refraction does not care about" anything - it is not able "care"!

But, atmospheric refraction usually makes an object near the horizon appear a little higher and is usually quite small.
Look at this
So atmospheric refraction is far too small to make your 5000 km high sun appear to approach the horizon and simply cannot make it appear to dip below the horizon.

But, in case you hadn't noticed, the thread is on, "Rethinking Perspective" not "atmospheric refraction".


*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #61 on: November 29, 2017, 03:41:53 AM »
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)

Aren't you supposed to be explaining perspective and the observation of sunset and sunrise?
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #62 on: November 29, 2017, 03:47:50 AM »
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)
Nice try, but "the mechanism of gravity" is totally irrelevant in a thread on "Rethinking Perspective".

Go derail some thread in CN!

Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck that something?

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2017, 03:51:12 AM »
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)
Nice try, but "the mechanism of gravity" is totally irrelevant in a thread on "Rethinking Perspective".

Go derail some thread in CN!

Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck that something?
That is certainly a true statement.  As long as the theory fits the observation, and at least makes a little sense, knowing the mechanism can come later.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #64 on: November 29, 2017, 03:53:35 AM »
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)
Nice try, but "the mechanism of gravity" is totally irrelevant in a thread on "Rethinking Perspective".

Go derail some thread in CN!

Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck that something?
That is certainly a true statement.  As long as the theory fits the observation, and at least makes a little sense, knowing the mechanism can come later.

Mike

Thank you for your support.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #65 on: November 29, 2017, 03:55:21 AM »
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.  You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed.  That is not how Zeteticism works.  We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.  That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.

Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.

In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS.  I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right?

Stop comparing observable phenomena that can be practically tested with theoretical physics. As you well know many scientists do question string theory/dark matter etc... I don't see anywhere near as many questioning our understanding of large scale refraction.

We are all currently arguing over bullshit rather than discussing the question raised in the OP.

The fact is you have thrown out refraction as the answer to the question with no justification or additional information that shows us your thought process in arriving at the conclusion, a conclusion that requires refraction to behave differently to how it's observed to behave in all other circumstances.

You may as well have said its all down to bunnies.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #66 on: November 29, 2017, 03:58:55 AM »
Go derail some thread in CN!

Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck(sic) that something?
No, we can't agree on that.
Do you even know the "exact specific mechanism" of something as well understand as electrostatic attraction?
And even when the "exact specific mechanism" of electrostatic attraction was not as well understood as it is now, was electrostatic attraction any less real.

But, in any case, it's irrelevant to this thread, the topic is "Rethinking Perspective"!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #67 on: November 29, 2017, 04:21:04 AM »
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.  You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed.  That is not how Zeteticism works.  We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.  That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.

Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.

In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS.  I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right?

Stop comparing observable phenomena that can be practically tested with theoretical physics. As you well know many scientists do question string theory/dark matter etc... I don't see anywhere near as many questioning our understanding of large scale refraction.

We are all currently arguing over bullshit rather than discussing the question raised in the OP.

The fact is you have thrown out refraction as the answer to the question with no justification or additional information that shows us your thought process in arriving at the conclusion, a conclusion that requires refraction to behave differently to how it's observed to behave in all other circumstances.

You may as well have said its all down to bunnies.



Well, then, it sounds to me that we can both agree that not having all of the answers is not negative proof.  Thank you. 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #68 on: November 29, 2017, 04:23:50 AM »
Go derail some thread in CN!

Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck(sic) that something?
No, we can't agree on that.
Do you even know the "exact specific mechanism" of something as well understand as electrostatic attraction?
And even when the "exact specific mechanism" of electrostatic attraction was not as well understood as it is now, was electrostatic attraction any less real.

But, in any case, it's irrelevant to this thread, the topic is "Rethinking Perspective"!

Your peoples (roundies) were the ones claiming that if I can not explain the exact specific way something works, then it is false.  Please read before you type. 

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #69 on: November 29, 2017, 04:31:52 AM »
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.  You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed.  That is not how Zeteticism works.  We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.  That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.

Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.

In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS.  I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right?

Stop comparing observable phenomena that can be practically tested with theoretical physics. As you well know many scientists do question string theory/dark matter etc... I don't see anywhere near as many questioning our understanding of large scale refraction.

We are all currently arguing over bullshit rather than discussing the question raised in the OP.

The fact is you have thrown out refraction as the answer to the question with no justification or additional information that shows us your thought process in arriving at the conclusion, a conclusion that requires refraction to behave differently to how it's observed to behave in all other circumstances.

You may as well have said its all down to bunnies.



Well, then, it sounds to me that we can both agree that not having all of the answers is not negative proof.  Thank you.

Of course, but not being able to find ANY answers to support an assertion definitely hints at the fact that the assertion is bullshit.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #70 on: November 29, 2017, 04:34:03 AM »
Well, then, it sounds to me that we can both agree that not having all of the answers is not negative proof.  Thank you.
Though I would say that if one "theory" (Flat Earth Theory) cannot explain simple things like:
      sunrises and sunsets,
      sunrise and sunset times and directions,
      24 hour daylight everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle,
      six month sunlight at the South Pole from Sep 21 to Mar 21,
      lunar phases and
      lunar eclipses
and the other "theory" (heliocentric Globe Theory) can explain all these and much much more

is very good evidence that Flat Earth Theory is grossly deficient.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #71 on: November 29, 2017, 04:36:12 AM »
Aren't those in their own threads?  Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #72 on: November 29, 2017, 04:45:32 AM »
Aren't those in their own threads?  Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?
I do believe that I was answering your post, is that not allowed now?

Why do you insist on derailing every thread you read, jroa?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #73 on: November 29, 2017, 04:47:08 AM »
Aren't those in their own threads?  Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?
I do believe that I was answering your post, is that not allowed now?

Why do you insist on derailing every thread you read, jroa?

I stay on topic.  I don't make irrelevant lists about things that I don't like about the roundies and post it in every thread.  Do you see the difference? 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #74 on: November 29, 2017, 05:02:58 AM »
Why do you insist on derailing every thread you read, jroa?

I stay on topic.
Incorrect! The topic is "Rethinking Perspective" and you  did your best at diverting that onto "refraction" way back with this post
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

Quote from: jroa
I don't make irrelevant lists about things that I don't like about the roundies and post it in every thread.  Do you see the difference?
I did not make any "lists about things that I don't like about the flatties". I made a list of things flatties can't explain.

There's a big difference!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #75 on: November 29, 2017, 05:06:41 AM »
Do you deny that either perspective or refraction exists and affects the way we perceive things?

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #76 on: November 29, 2017, 05:09:19 AM »
Aren't those in their own threads?  Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?
I do believe that I was answering your post, is that not allowed now?

Why do you insist on derailing every thread you read, jroa?

I stay on topic.  I don't make irrelevant lists about things that I don't like about the roundies and post it in every thread.  Do you see the difference?

Off topic, stop derailing.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #77 on: November 29, 2017, 05:17:05 AM »
Et tu Brute?

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #78 on: November 29, 2017, 05:51:17 AM »
Do you deny that either perspective or refraction exists and affects the way we perceive things?
Of course they exist.  However, as I previously posted and you ignored, perspective or refraction cannot explain sunsets/sunrises.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #79 on: November 29, 2017, 05:56:08 AM »
Do you deny that either perspective or refraction exists and affects the way we perceive things?
Of course they exist.  However, as I previously posted and you ignored, perspective or refraction cannot explain sunsets/sunrises.

Mike

Good thing that this thread is not about sunrise/sunset then.  ::)

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #80 on: November 29, 2017, 05:58:59 AM »
Aren't those in their own threads?  Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?
Ok I just have to say, coming from you that was seriously funny.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #81 on: November 29, 2017, 06:33:57 AM »
Ok, so to get back to the point of the thread, it would appear that there is currently no known and understood explanation for why the sun does not get smaller as it moves towards sunset in FE.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #82 on: November 29, 2017, 07:11:23 AM »
Ok, so to get back to the point of the thread, it would appear that there is currently no known and understood explanation for why the sun does not get smaller as it moves towards sunset in FE.
I think that sums it up well.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #83 on: November 29, 2017, 08:27:20 AM »
Haven't you heard of the new "personal sky" theory or the donut field theory?

Honestly, that thing where they map sun position, is nothing more than putting the data on the flat earth map, and OOHing that it makes a cute picture.  Not one that makes any real sense necessarily, it just looks kinda cool.  Meanwhile putting that data on a globe just points to the sun.  BOOORING!  Like the flat earth picture better!  Want flat earth picture!

The personal sky theory is quite nebulous but usually involves refraction.  In that sense, flat earthers assign a VERY important job to refraction: GET THE SUN WHERE ITS SUPPOSED TO BE DARNIT!  This is a job that needs high precision and stability (in order to match orderly reality), and refraction is not known for always behaving precisely and stably.  In addition, they need stunningly powerful refractions, bending in the opposite way to what we expect. (we have good reason to believe refraction bends toward higher density, not vice-versa as flat earthers need)  I view this theory as another absurdity.

SORRY, tangent: to bring this back on topic: no, perspective does not set the sun nor get it in the right place.  They need other mechanisms such as refraction etc.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 08:30:35 AM by braingrunt »

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #84 on: November 29, 2017, 08:51:01 AM »
Ok, so to get back to the point of the thread, it would appear that there is currently no known and understood explanation for why the sun does not get smaller as it moves towards sunset in FE.
I mean, Rowbotham claims it's due to the "Well known magnification of bright lights by the atmoplane" and lamp posts are frequently cited as evidence. This becomes somewhat problematic when one brings in glare reduction, but it's the only explanation I've ever seen.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #85 on: November 29, 2017, 10:40:20 AM »
Do you deny that either perspective or refraction exists and affects the way we perceive things?
Of course they exist.  However, as I previously posted and you ignored, perspective or refraction cannot explain sunsets/sunrises.

Mike

Good thing that this thread is not about sunrise/sunset then.  ::)
You didn't actually read the first post did you?  The OP starts out with "Sun sets due to perspective?".  So perspective of sunsets is exactly what this thread is about and you're the one who brought up refraction...just sayin'

Mike
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #86 on: November 29, 2017, 01:01:47 PM »
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)
And we are still waiting for you to get back to discussing the topic.

Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck that something?
As I have told you repeatedly, the issue is that you are rejecting the known mechanism, replacing it with only pure ignorance, to try and pretend that Earth can be flat.

If you can't offer a mechanism or any sort of explanation or justification, we will stick with the known mechanisms.

That is certainly a true statement.  As long as the theory fits the observation, and at least makes a little sense, knowing the mechanism can come later.
Thank you for your support.
I take it you missed the last part.
It has to make at least a little sense. Your crap does not.

I stay on topic.  I don't make irrelevant lists about things that I don't like about the roundies and post it in every thread.  Do you see the difference?
So what was with you bitching about gravity and dark matter and so on?
Sure seems like you do exactly what you are accusing others of.

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #87 on: November 29, 2017, 01:05:44 PM »
Haven't you heard of the new "personal sky" theory or the donut field theory?
I have, and it is a load of nonsense which requires ignoring simple facts.

Honestly, that thing where they map sun position, is nothing more than putting the data on the flat earth map, and OOHing that it makes a cute picture.
There is actually a far bigger problem with that.
They use 2D data (azimuth and angle of elevation) to try and determine a 3D position of the apparent location of the sun above Earth.
The problem is all they could actually do is show the sun's position as a line (or a cone to show uncertainty), and if they did that for a flat or round Earth they would find out it matches a round Earth.