HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

  • 116 Replies
  • 3824 Views
*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2019, 03:59:00 PM »
The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.
For Earth, a triangle with an angle sum of 270 degrees can easily be constructed (or 180+x).
Start at the equator and go due north to the north pole. Then turn 90 degrees (or x), and head due south back to the equator.
Then turn 90 degrees at the equator and travel along until you reach your original line which is going off at 90 degrees.
That alone means Earth isn't flat, and thus can't be a flat torus.
You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2019, 04:07:49 PM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

*

Stash

  • 2522
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2019, 04:48:54 PM »
The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.
For Earth, a triangle with an angle sum of 270 degrees can easily be constructed (or 180+x).
Start at the equator and go due north to the north pole. Then turn 90 degrees (or x), and head due south back to the equator.
Then turn 90 degrees at the equator and travel along until you reach your original line which is going off at 90 degrees.
That alone means Earth isn't flat, and thus can't be a flat torus.
You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.

Yes there is something like that in reality:


Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #63 on: July 09, 2019, 03:33:30 AM »
You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
The fact that you have to insult me like that to try and dismiss me rather than deal with the arguments presented shows that it is quite likely the opposite.

I'm not the liar here.
I'm not the one pretending Earth is a torus.
I'm not the one pretending that all tori are flat.

The simple fact is Earth is topologically equivalent to a sphere.
You can even get this just by noting connections without direct measurements.
There is no flat sphere.

You ignoring reality doesn't make me a liar.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #64 on: July 09, 2019, 03:50:59 AM »
You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
The fact that you have to insult me like that to try and dismiss me rather than deal with the arguments presented shows that it is quite likely the opposite.

I'm not the liar here.
I'm not the one pretending Earth is a torus.
I'm not the one pretending that all tori are flat.

The simple fact is Earth is topologically equivalent to a sphere.
You can even get this just by noting connections without direct measurements.
There is no flat sphere.

You ignoring reality doesn't make me a liar.

Zorbakim says true like everytime he says. You're a liar and he is not insulting you. You are the one who ignores the reality and insults believers here only in anger of them because you are doing wrong and they are good. Your insults to believers does not magically make the earth round. It will never happen. Stop that childish behave and grow up. Then you can learn and let others learn something from discussings between believers and real researchers. I hope you short-circuit and never work again.
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #65 on: July 09, 2019, 04:00:35 AM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2019, 04:20:20 AM »
You're a liar
And there you go chiming in with insults and no rational arguments.

If you want to claim I am a liar, prove it.
Show that you can get a flat sphere.
Show that Earth is topologically equivalent to a torus.
Go ahead and try. You will not succeed.

Calling me a liar because you cannot refute me is insulting me, and it is an ad-hom.

Follow your own advice and grow up and stop ignoring reality.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2019, 04:27:50 AM »
Calling me a liar because ...

I am calling you a liar because you are so. Your changing my reason in your own benefits does not magically make my reason as how you want them to be.

Why are you here? Why are you here, you are here only annoying and harrassing the believers as soon as possible. you are waging war against believers in your own little secret war room. And you're running this war with your own lies. Repeating the same lies 40 times does not make them convincing. If that were the case, you would have fooled one believer here with 10000 lies. Do you remember that you managed to deceive any believer? You've been here for years. no. not even one. you are wasting your time as well as wasting the time of believers. I guess your mission is to waste of time. If would here be a real flat earth society management so you and ignorant angry globularistss like you would not stay here and sent out in a flash. But you are here because they are serving you.
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2019, 04:43:53 AM »
I am calling you a liar because you are so.
No. You call me a liar because you are unable to rationally defend your claims or refute mine. So you lie and say I am a liar to pretend you have a reason to dismiss my claims.

Again, if I actually was a liar you would easily be able to prove it.
You would be able to show that a sphere can be flat, or that Earth is topologically a torus.
Yet you don't even attempt to, likely because you know stand no chance.

Why are you here?
Because unlike you I care about the truth.
All it takes for BS to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.

Now, care to actually try and refute what I have said, or will you just continue with more pathetic insults?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #69 on: July 09, 2019, 04:51:56 AM »
I am calling you a liar because you are so.
No. You call me a liar because you are unable to rationally defend your claims or refute mine.
Yes. Everybody who follow our talkings can easily understand that I've directly said your being a liar after I saw you've blamed zorbakim's insulting you. So, you are blind that do not aware what you are writing. It was not my claim your being liar in this issue, zorbakim's claim. I am supporting him because you are so.

It is countlessly proven your being a liar does not need a new proof. Everything about you is a lie. You are a lying machine.

I proved the earth's being flat. Your being unable to understand it does not magically make them absent. Just proves your being blind can't see them.

You don't care the truth at all. You are the who is fighting to destroy the truth and change it with your globularist lies.

The only one here has pathetic insults is you are. Are you ready to stop your pathetic agressivity against believers, those you clearly see your agressivity don't work at all?
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






*

Stash

  • 2522
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #70 on: July 09, 2019, 04:35:18 PM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.

Umm, have you ever looked at a Google Street View camera. It has multiple cameras shooting at different angles where the images are then stitched together. There's nothing odd about the pictures you posted. One camera looking straight to the side view and one on either side of it angled ahead and one angled behind. As well they are wide angle lenses with some distortion that any wide angle lens creates. There's no mystery here.


*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #71 on: July 10, 2019, 01:38:11 AM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #72 on: July 10, 2019, 01:54:48 AM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #73 on: July 12, 2019, 01:04:48 AM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #74 on: July 12, 2019, 01:26:10 AM »
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
Yes, because that is what all the evidence indicates, and how cameras and the eye works.
The light comes in at a particular direction.
Your eye/camera senses that direction due to specific photosensitive cells detecting that light and creating an electrical signal.
If something spans a large angle, it will stimulate a lot of those cells and be detected as that large angle.
If it only spans a small angle, then it will stimulate a smaller region of cells and be detected as a smaller angle.

It can also easily be explained based upon breaking the object into smaller pieces.
The top of the object is detected in one direction.
The bottom is detected in another.
The angular size is based upon the difference between these directions.

But I think it's because of the light pressure.
Which would make it proportional to intensity, unless you wanted to invent some new magic light pressure.
The problem is that it isn't.
A bright object can appear to span a small angular size, while a much darker object spans a much larger size.
More importantly, intensity typically drops as 1/r2, not 1/r.

So that doesn't fit reality at all.

There is no problem just using angular size as modern science knows it works.

*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #75 on: July 12, 2019, 01:52:58 AM »
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
Yes, because that is what all the evidence indicates, and how cameras and the eye works.
The light comes in at a particular direction.
Your eye/camera senses that direction due to specific photosensitive cells detecting that light and creating an electrical signal.
If something spans a large angle, it will stimulate a lot of those cells and be detected as that large angle.
If it only spans a small angle, then it will stimulate a smaller region of cells and be detected as a smaller angle.

It can also easily be explained based upon breaking the object into smaller pieces.
The top of the object is detected in one direction.
The bottom is detected in another.
The angular size is based upon the difference between these directions.

But I think it's because of the light pressure.
Which would make it proportional to intensity, unless you wanted to invent some new magic light pressure.
The problem is that it isn't.
A bright object can appear to span a small angular size, while a much darker object spans a much larger size.
More importantly, intensity typically drops as 1/r2, not 1/r.

So that doesn't fit reality at all.

There is no problem just using angular size as modern science knows it works.
No, there are many problems using an angular size

If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.
As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
So our view is tangent?
Absolutely not.
Therefore, a modern visual theory is wrong.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 02:04:50 AM by zorbakim »
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #76 on: July 12, 2019, 02:10:18 AM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #77 on: July 12, 2019, 03:05:49 AM »
No, there are many problems using an angular size
Really? I am yet to find one which isn't caused by people making mistakes.
The only thing that comes close is the limit of resolution where very small objects cannot be resolved and either appear larger than they are (if they are bright enough) or they aren't noticed at all (if they aren't bright enough).

If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.
Only as an approximation for distant objects.
If the object is close enough then doubling the distance will not cut the size in half.
The simple way to show this is to first consider an object 1024 m away which takes up 1 degree. (that is roughly 18 m tall).
Now we repeatedly half the distance and double the angular size and consider what happens. (the faster way is to note it is based upon the assumption that the size times the distance is constant, and thus we can just flip it and get it to be 1024 degrees, but lets do it the long way for completeness and to avoid any arguments)

512 m gives 2 degrees.
256 m gives 4 degrees.
128 m gives 8 degrees.
64 m gives 16 degrees.
32 m gives 32 degrees.
16 m gives 64 degrees.
8 m gives 128 degrees.
4 m gives 256 degrees, more than covering an entire side of your vision. This is only possible if you are inside it.
2 m gives 512 degrees. This is more than physically possible. Even if you were inside an object with no opening, it would only be 360 degrees.
1 m gives 1024 degrees. This is just insanity.

So clearly objects cannot simply half the angle angle when the distance is doubled.
If you think I am being unfair with my initial conditions then just take any object, and do the same. A tall building viewed from a distance is a good start.

The origin for this is the small x approximation for the tangent function.
When x is small, tan(x)~=x.
In reality, tan(a)=h/d.
The small x approximation means that a~=h/d, but only when a is small, which requires h/d to be small.

We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
The inverse tangent (which is what I am assuming you are using) is that angle.
If they don't match, you have done something wrong.

*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #78 on: July 13, 2019, 12:52:44 AM »
No, there are many problems using an angular size
Really? I am yet to find one which isn't caused by people making mistakes.
The only thing that comes close is the limit of resolution where very small objects cannot be resolved and either appear larger than they are (if they are bright enough) or they aren't noticed at all (if they aren't bright enough).

If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.
Only as an approximation for distant objects.
If the object is close enough then doubling the distance will not cut the size in half.
The simple way to show this is to first consider an object 1024 m away which takes up 1 degree. (that is roughly 18 m tall).
Now we repeatedly half the distance and double the angular size and consider what happens. (the faster way is to note it is based upon the assumption that the size times the distance is constant, and thus we can just flip it and get it to be 1024 degrees, but lets do it the long way for completeness and to avoid any arguments)

512 m gives 2 degrees.
256 m gives 4 degrees.
128 m gives 8 degrees.
64 m gives 16 degrees.
32 m gives 32 degrees.
16 m gives 64 degrees.
8 m gives 128 degrees.
4 m gives 256 degrees, more than covering an entire side of your vision. This is only possible if you are inside it.
2 m gives 512 degrees. This is more than physically possible. Even if you were inside an object with no opening, it would only be 360 degrees.
1 m gives 1024 degrees. This is just insanity.

So clearly objects cannot simply half the angle angle when the distance is doubled.
If you think I am being unfair with my initial conditions then just take any object, and do the same. A tall building viewed from a distance is a good start.

The origin for this is the small x approximation for the tangent function.
When x is small, tan(x)~=x.
In reality, tan(a)=h/d.
The small x approximation means that a~=h/d, but only when a is small, which requires h/d to be small.

We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
The inverse tangent (which is what I am assuming you are using) is that angle.
If they don't match, you have done something wrong.

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #79 on: July 13, 2019, 01:00:33 AM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #80 on: July 13, 2019, 01:13:26 AM »
...
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 01:16:23 AM by wise »
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #81 on: July 13, 2019, 01:16:18 AM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.

then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?

PS: Corrections made.
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






*

rabinoz

  • 22153
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #82 on: July 13, 2019, 03:48:56 AM »
We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
That is the same result JackBlack gave, look.
Quote from: JackBlack
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
When the "16 m tall object" is 16 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/16) = (arc tan 1) = 45.0 and
when the "16 m tall object" is 32 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/32) = (arc tan 1/2) = 26.6.

Why do you say is that wrong?

Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #83 on: July 13, 2019, 04:28:05 AM »
Sorry
You can only see the dimension if you live in or outside said dimension.

We live in a 3d existence caught in a 4d event horizon.

*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #84 on: July 13, 2019, 08:46:50 AM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.

then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?

PS: Corrections made.
You're right.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

*

zorbakim

  • 106
  • Pyeong Jee In
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #85 on: July 13, 2019, 08:49:57 AM »
We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
That is the same result JackBlack gave, look.
Quote from: JackBlack
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
When the "16 m tall object" is 16 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/16) = (arc tan 1) = 45.0 and
when the "16 m tall object" is 32 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/32) = (arc tan 1/2) = 26.6.

Why do you say is that wrong?
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.
The conceptual earth is round, but the sensory earth is flat.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #86 on: July 13, 2019, 01:10:57 PM »
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.

then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?

PS: Corrections made.
You're right.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.

I think we agree on a lot of issues. in fact this should have been the case for others. but as I said sometime, they don't have the intelligence and maturity to understand what we're talking about. anyways.

I thought we might be on a point or line and that came to me as well. I set out that the sunlight behaved in two dimensions as if it were on a screen. but it may be a two-dimensional shape that is shown to me even though I am at one point. there are certain minor errors. but the creators of the simulation seem like worked seriously to make it realistic. I think that the creators of the simulation are confused in God's position, just as we do.

The commandments of God are certain. but they both deliberately misrepresented the commandments of God and caused different religions. frankly, they did not want all people to believe in God at once. I don't understand why they do it, and because I don't, I'm opposed to this behavior.
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






*

Macarios

  • 1684
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #87 on: July 13, 2019, 01:13:30 PM »
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.


That was not the question.

The question was:
"Why you say that what he said was wrong, when  you just repeat the same thing as 'correction' to his values?"

He said:
Quote from: JackBlack
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6

And you 'correct' him:
Quote from: zorbakim
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18239
  • Backstage
Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #88 on: July 13, 2019, 01:27:01 PM »
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.


That was not the question.

The question was:
"Why you say that what he said was wrong, when  you just repeat the same thing as 'correction' to his values?"

He said:
Quote from: JackBlack
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6

And you 'correct' him:
Quote from: zorbakim
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?

Perhaps he does not see this question has enough value to reply. because repeating same facts but you are unable to get it, so there is no point to repeat it. the size of the object does not decrease by half when the distance doubles. however, it would have to be halfway to connect it with a straight line. in other words, you don't see anything as straight.
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
« Reply #89 on: July 13, 2019, 06:24:29 PM »
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
Other than rounding differently, that is what I said.
The point is objects don't appear to have their apparent (angular) size cut in half when the distance is doubled when they are close.
Again, you can easily show this cannot be the case by going the other way, i.e. halving the distance.
I already showed that and you just ignored it and said I am wrong.

Take an object that is 16 m away and 16 m tall, above your eyeline.
That makes it 45 degrees.
According to your claim, at 8 m away it would need to cover from straight out, to straight up, but it doesn't.
Halving the distance again to 4 m it now would also need to appear behind you according to you. This makes no sense.

The apparent size of the object is the angular size.

Doubling the distance resulting in the object appearing half the size only works for small distant objects. Not close ones.


the size of the object does not decrease by half when the distance doubles. however, it would have to be halfway to connect it with a straight line. in other words, you don't see anything as straight.
No, it doesn't need to be "halfway" to be straight.
That is because a distance away from you will also appear to shrink as it gets further away.