« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Down

Double standards

  • 322 Replies
  • 49311 Views
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #240 on: December 20, 2019, 03:49:35 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
It's explained here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Quote
The distance to the sun and the celestial bodies has been in some contention over the years. In Chapter 5 of Earth Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham computes the sun to be less than 700 miles above surface of the earth, and the stars contained within 1000 miles. Later researchers with the Universal Zetetic Society estimated the sun to be at about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, with the stars at about 100 miles above that.

The distance to the celestial bodies is considered to be technically unknown due to confounding phenomena such as Electomagnetic Acceleration and the projection celestial bodies upon the atmolayer which prevents reliable straight line triangulation. However, it is commonly and informally thought that the celestial bodies are in a range of a few thousand miles above the surface of the earth, in line with our precursor organization.

The purpose of this page is to showcase the historic methods that have been used to determine the height of the sun and celestial bodies. More specifically, this page will show that the Round Earth distance to the sun, and therefore the size of the solar system, relies on the idea that the earth is a sphere. The triangulation method depends on an assumption about the shape of the earth.

When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.

Nice margin of error there.
700 vs 3,000.
And whats the math involved?
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Double standards
« Reply #241 on: December 20, 2019, 06:50:05 PM »
Quote from: Themightykabool on December 20, 2019, 03:49:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
It's explained here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Quote
The distance to the sun and the celestial bodies has been in some contention over the years. In Chapter 5 of Earth Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham computes the sun to be less than 700 miles above surface of the earth, and the stars contained within 1000 miles. Later researchers with the Universal Zetetic Society estimated the sun to be at about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, with the stars at about 100 miles above that.

The distance to the celestial bodies is considered to be technically unknown due to confounding phenomena such as Electomagnetic Acceleration and the projection celestial bodies upon the atmolayer which prevents reliable straight line triangulation. However, it is commonly and informally thought that the celestial bodies are in a range of a few thousand miles above the surface of the earth, in line with our precursor organization.

The purpose of this page is to showcase the historic methods that have been used to determine the height of the sun and celestial bodies. More specifically, this page will show that the Round Earth distance to the sun, and therefore the size of the solar system, relies on the idea that the earth is a sphere. The triangulation method depends on an assumption about the shape of the earth.

When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.

Nice margin of error there.
700 vs 3,000.
And whats the math involved?
As I recall (at least from ENaG), the math is pretty much the same as the modern method.  Both involve two simultaneous measurements of the sun's angle and calculating the altitude.  The primary difference is the locations used.  Of course, that just goes to point out the fundamental flaw in the method when you assume a flat earth.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Timeisup

  • 3666
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Double standards
« Reply #242 on: December 21, 2019, 12:24:36 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
It's explained here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Quote
The distance to the sun and the celestial bodies has been in some contention over the years. In Chapter 5 of Earth Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham computes the sun to be less than 700 miles above surface of the earth, and the stars contained within 1000 miles. Later researchers with the Universal Zetetic Society estimated the sun to be at about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, with the stars at about 100 miles above that.

The distance to the celestial bodies is considered to be technically unknown due to confounding phenomena such as Electomagnetic Acceleration and the projection celestial bodies upon the atmolayer which prevents reliable straight line triangulation. However, it is commonly and informally thought that the celestial bodies are in a range of a few thousand miles above the surface of the earth, in line with our precursor organization.

The purpose of this page is to showcase the historic methods that have been used to determine the height of the sun and celestial bodies. More specifically, this page will show that the Round Earth distance to the sun, and therefore the size of the solar system, relies on the idea that the earth is a sphere. The triangulation method depends on an assumption about the shape of the earth.

When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.

I hardly think that a statement such as :-

" Later researchers with the Universal Zetetic Society estimated the sun to be at about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, with the stars at about 100 miles above that"

-can really be taken seriously without knowing, who the people from the Universal Zetetic Society were, what was their underlying methodology, and what was the nature of the data and observations they produced that gave them the quoted figures. Did they publish their findings? if so where? It appears you expect it to be taken on trust because it happens to be on your Wiki.  Rather I think for it to be taken with more than just a pinch of salt and labeled under 'N' for nonsense you have to give much more than that.
Logged
Really…..what a laugh!!!
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #243 on: December 21, 2019, 02:29:28 AM »
Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2019, 06:50:05 PM
Quote from: Themightykabool on December 20, 2019, 03:49:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
It's explained here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Quote
The distance to the sun and the celestial bodies has been in some contention over the years. In Chapter 5 of Earth Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham computes the sun to be less than 700 miles above surface of the earth, and the stars contained within 1000 miles. Later researchers with the Universal Zetetic Society estimated the sun to be at about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, with the stars at about 100 miles above that.

The distance to the celestial bodies is considered to be technically unknown due to confounding phenomena such as Electomagnetic Acceleration and the projection celestial bodies upon the atmolayer which prevents reliable straight line triangulation. However, it is commonly and informally thought that the celestial bodies are in a range of a few thousand miles above the surface of the earth, in line with our precursor organization.

The purpose of this page is to showcase the historic methods that have been used to determine the height of the sun and celestial bodies. More specifically, this page will show that the Round Earth distance to the sun, and therefore the size of the solar system, relies on the idea that the earth is a sphere. The triangulation method depends on an assumption about the shape of the earth.

When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.

Nice margin of error there.
700 vs 3,000.
And whats the math involved?
As I recall (at least from ENaG), the math is pretty much the same as the modern method.  Both involve two simultaneous measurements of the sun's angle and calculating the altitude.  The primary difference is the locations used.  Of course, that just goes to point out the fundamental flaw in the method when you assume a flat earth.

well from that "old greek guy" i think the error was somewhere in the range of 10-15% which is pretty good given he's using shadow, sticks, and a guy walking for days and weeks.
what are we talking about in terms of ENAG - a data set that ranges between 700 and 3,000?
great!
looks like FE astronomy science is progressing well.
450% the distance whereas RE science only improved by 10-15%.
is that how math works?
Logged
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #244 on: February 21, 2020, 10:48:33 AM »
Dinosaurs

Quote from: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 08:21:27 AM
Point being, the entire field of paleontology is filled with positivists like this, that will explain away raining frogs or flying whales with what seem like "perfectly reasonable explanations", until one looks at the whole. Oh? They are too big to gain enough food to exist? We'll just fill their bones with air and give them feathers. Perfectly reasonable alone. When taken as a whole, one sees the entire mess for what it is - cobbled together ad hoc explanations to support their childhood born delusions of dragons.

Could we say the same for the FE?

Paleontology is mainly guess work as most fossils are flat or partial.
Are you agreeing their method is at best guesswork, opinion biased, and ad hoc?
What (hypotetically if possible) would a "proper" method use?
Lets assume conditions were better.
Lets say we were looking at ancient cultures or neanderthals who are more recent and in better "condition" and have more to relate to living examples.

Logged
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17692
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Double standards
« Reply #245 on: February 21, 2020, 12:08:49 PM »
There has of yet been no confirmation that the "round earth" method worked at all.
Logged
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #246 on: February 21, 2020, 12:35:54 PM »
I meant - what good scientific practises are there that paleontolgy isnt using.
With the obvious trick im trying to trap you in producing conflicting standards to the zetic method of enag.
Logged
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17692
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Double standards
« Reply #247 on: February 21, 2020, 12:56:28 PM »
I was responding to the previous poster, not you.

To your question, I am fairly convinced there is no "proper method," or at least no such method that can be defined. That said, I do think there is such a thing as improper method, and I would point to their unwillingness to critically reevaluate their base axioms or perform a paradigm shift that resolves the huge number of open issues that beg one to wonder how anybody can believe in dinosaurs in the first place. This differs from the flat earth zetetic methodology in that we are in such a paradigm shift to begin with.

Logged
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.
*

Timeisup

  • 3666
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Double standards
« Reply #248 on: February 22, 2020, 02:38:13 AM »
Not believing in a field of science because it doesn’t fit in with your own beliefs is hardly scientific. The answer to the question did Dinosaurs exist is a resounding yes. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming. Evidence of not only thousands of fossilised remains in museums all over the world, not all from China, but of trackways, or dinosaur foot prints, preserved in rock. Dinosaur trackways can be found in all five continents, as can the fossilised remains of the creatures who left them. It never ceases to amaze me is how a person can believe in moonshrimp for which there is no evidence, while claiming dinosaurs are a fiction for which there is literally mountains of evidence.
Logged
Really…..what a laugh!!!
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #249 on: February 22, 2020, 06:52:22 AM »
Quote from: Timeisup on February 22, 2020, 02:38:13 AM
Not believing in a field of science because it doesn’t fit in with your own beliefs is hardly scientific. The answer to the question did Dinosaurs exist is a resounding yes. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming. Evidence of not only thousands of fossilised remains in museums all over the world, not all from China, but of trackways, or dinosaur foot prints, preserved in rock. Dinosaur trackways can be found in all five continents, as can the fossilised remains of the creatures who left them. It never ceases to amaze me is how a person can believe in moonshrimp for which there is no evidence, while claiming dinosaurs are a fiction for which there is literally mountains of evidence.

Go aruge dinosaurs in the dino thread.
Youve once again missed the point.
This is the double standard that johnD has put to dinosaur belivers and FE.
Logged
*

Timeisup

  • 3666
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Double standards
« Reply #250 on: February 23, 2020, 02:02:37 AM »
Quote from: Themightykabool on February 22, 2020, 06:52:22 AM
Quote from: Timeisup on February 22, 2020, 02:38:13 AM
Not believing in a field of science because it doesn’t fit in with your own beliefs is hardly scientific. The answer to the question did Dinosaurs exist is a resounding yes. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming. Evidence of not only thousands of fossilised remains in museums all over the world, not all from China, but of trackways, or dinosaur foot prints, preserved in rock. Dinosaur trackways can be found in all five continents, as can the fossilised remains of the creatures who left them. It never ceases to amaze me is how a person can believe in moonshrimp for which there is no evidence, while claiming dinosaurs are a fiction for which there is literally mountains of evidence.

Go aruge dinosaurs in the dino thread.
Youve once again missed the point.
This is the double standard that johnD has put to dinosaur belivers and FE.

You now a member of the thought police as well as a rocket scientist?
Logged
Really…..what a laugh!!!
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #251 on: February 23, 2020, 01:20:50 PM »
You really are bonkers.
Logged
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #252 on: February 23, 2020, 02:39:17 PM »
Quote from: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 12:08:49 PM
There has of yet been no confirmation that the "round earth" method worked at all.
Other than that space missions to Mercury and orbiting the Sun seem to end up where expected etc, etc.

Where are there any FE measurements that yield consistent results?

Even the so-called measurement of the "height of the Sun" using the "Eratosthenes method" yields results that vary from 0 miles to almost 3950 miles depending on the spacing of the measurement locations.

It happens to give the "accepted a bit over 3000 miles" when taken between the equator and a point 45° north or south.
Can you point to any actual measurements done by flat Earthers?


Logged
?

inquisitive

  • 5108
Re: Double standards
« Reply #253 on: February 24, 2020, 10:58:34 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
It's explained here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Quote
The distance to the sun and the celestial bodies has been in some contention over the years. In Chapter 5 of Earth Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham computes the sun to be less than 700 miles above surface of the earth, and the stars contained within 1000 miles. Later researchers with the Universal Zetetic Society estimated the sun to be at about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, with the stars at about 100 miles above that.

The distance to the celestial bodies is considered to be technically unknown due to confounding phenomena such as Electomagnetic Acceleration and the projection celestial bodies upon the atmolayer which prevents reliable straight line triangulation. However, it is commonly and informally thought that the celestial bodies are in a range of a few thousand miles above the surface of the earth, in line with our precursor organization.

The purpose of this page is to showcase the historic methods that have been used to determine the height of the sun and celestial bodies. More specifically, this page will show that the Round Earth distance to the sun, and therefore the size of the solar system, relies on the idea that the earth is a sphere. The triangulation method depends on an assumption about the shape of the earth.

When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.
Current measurement methods do not rely on the shape of the earth, they use the relative 3D positions of the measurement locations.
Logged
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #254 on: March 04, 2020, 08:34:52 AM »
Here we have another great one by Lackless

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2020, 07:22:28 AM
Nobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...

Either pony up a working CGI of the solar system traipsing about the galaxy or just go away, you alchemist.

Your numbers are hocus pocus...


Here he demands a working cgi model of the universe.
You fe are yet to produce a working app tracking rhe sun, eclispses, or even getting from south america to australia.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 08:40:26 AM by Themightykabool »
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Double standards
« Reply #255 on: March 04, 2020, 08:44:20 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.
That would require EA to be quantified, testable and experimentally verified.  Currently EA is none of those.

As I recall, you are the one who said: "If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it."
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Double standards
« Reply #256 on: March 04, 2020, 09:09:13 AM »
Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2020, 08:44:20 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.
That would require EA to be quantified, testable and experimentally verified.  Currently EA is none of those.

As I recall, you are the one who said: "If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it."

I did verify it. It predicts several effects which RE does not. See the 'evidence' section at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Double standards
« Reply #257 on: March 04, 2020, 09:30:39 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:09:13 AM
Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2020, 08:44:20 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.
That would require EA to be quantified, testable and experimentally verified.  Currently EA is none of those.

As I recall, you are the one who said: "If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it."

I did verify it. It predicts several effects which RE does not. See the 'evidence' section at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Have any of those predicted effrects been experimentally verified?  Has the EA formula been finalized and tested against real world observations?

I think that this clearly demonstrates the double standard that FE'ers use when talking about "evidence".
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 09:33:31 AM by markjo »
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Double standards
« Reply #258 on: March 04, 2020, 09:56:35 AM »
Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2020, 09:30:39 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:09:13 AM
Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2020, 08:44:20 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.
That would require EA to be quantified, testable and experimentally verified.  Currently EA is none of those.

As I recall, you are the one who said: "If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it."

I did verify it. It predicts several effects which RE does not. See the 'evidence' section at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Have any of those predicted effrects been experimentally verified?  Has the EA formula been finalized and tested against real world observations?

I think that this clearly demonstrates the double standard that FE'ers use when talking about "evidence".

I did test EA against real world observations. I saw the Moon Tilt Illusion for myself. The geometry of FE's EA said that it would not point at the Sun, and would point above the Sun, especially between rising and midmoon.

I also created a 3D model showing that perspective does not explain it. RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 10:24:56 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #259 on: March 04, 2020, 10:39:17 AM »
Link that model
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Double standards
« Reply #260 on: March 04, 2020, 10:55:02 AM »
Logged
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Double standards
« Reply #261 on: March 04, 2020, 11:30:12 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:56:35 AM
RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.

Where did this occur?
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Double standards
« Reply #262 on: March 04, 2020, 12:07:36 PM »
Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 11:30:12 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:56:35 AM
RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.

Where did this occur?

Every time we discussed the content of the link on the websites, and again just now, when you responded with a question rather than a rebuttal and answer.
Logged
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Double standards
« Reply #263 on: March 04, 2020, 12:22:55 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 11:30:12 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:56:35 AM
RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.

Where did this occur?

Every time we discussed the content of the link on the websites, and again just now, when you responded with a question rather than a rebuttal and answer.

Huh, ok. A rather strange way yo back up your claim, but whatever works for you.

In the Myers paper you cite several times in the wiki they explain, "The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun." As well there is a whole section on how to express/predict the degree of the illusion. I didn't see any EA predictive qualities in the wiki.

Literally, the string experiment is all you need. You tried to counter that with the lying on the ground thing with a tree top and a cabin roof with something about 190 degrees of view (humans binocular stand around 120 degrees) but that example didn't make any sense.

The string is all you need.
Logged
?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4075
Re: Double standards
« Reply #264 on: March 04, 2020, 12:24:33 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:56:35 AM
I did test EA against real world observations. I saw the Moon Tilt Illusion for myself. The geometry of FE's EA said that it would not point at the Sun, and would point above the Sun, especially between rising and midmoon.

It's called an illusion because that's what it is... an illusion.

Quote
il·lu·sion

noun
a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
"the illusion makes parallel lines seem to diverge by placing them on a zigzag-striped background"

Quote
I also created a 3D model showing that perspective does not explain it. RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.

Did you forget the discussion a year and a half ago about this and its outcome, Tom, or were you relying on the hope that nobody else would remember it? If the latter, it didn't work.

Here's a post from the thread that illustrates a blunder in the incorrect idea you were touting:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77362.msg2090715#msg2090715

Here's the abstract of the paper whose graphic you presented in that thread, and a link to the paper itself:
Quote from: https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
Abstract. The moon tilt illusion is the startling discrepancy between the direction
of the light beam illuminating the moon and the direction of the sun. The illusion
arises because the observer erroneously expects a light ray between sun and moon
to appear as a line of constant slope according to the positions of the sun and
the moon in the sky. This expectation does not correspond to the reality that
observation by direct vision or a camera is according to perspective projection, for
which the observed slope of a straight line in three-dimensional object space changes
according to the direction of observation. Comparing the observed and expected
directions of incoming light at the moon, we derive an equation for the magnitude
of the moon tilt illusion that can be applied to all configurations of sun and moon
in the sky.

The body of the paper is a thorough analysis and explanation of the physics behind the phenomenon, assuming the conventional model of the solar system and a spherical earth (i.e. "the RE explanation").

Nothing you said in that thread suggests that you read the paper or understood it if you did read it. The only thing we can be sure of is that you used one of the illustrations from it, and that helped undermine your position.
Logged
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #265 on: March 04, 2020, 12:25:17 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2020, 11:30:12 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:56:35 AM
RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.

Where did this occur?

Every time we discussed the content of the link on the websites, and again just now, when you responded with a question rather than a rebuttal and answer.
Examples please.
Logged
?

Themightykabool

  • 10588
Re: Double standards
« Reply #266 on: March 04, 2020, 12:31:43 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: Themightykabool on March 04, 2020, 10:39:17 AM
Link that model

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Thanks.
Your article doesnt show two things.
1.Perspective of someone on earth looking at a far moon lit up by an even farther sun.
2.your fe model (unless i missed it).
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Double standards
« Reply #267 on: March 04, 2020, 12:40:29 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:56:35 AM
I did test EA against real world observations. I saw the Moon Tilt Illusion for myself. The geometry of FE's EA said that it would not point at the Sun, and would point above the Sun, especially between rising and midmoon.
Would you care to show the maths that you used to calculate the geometry of the path of the light rays?
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

JackBlack

  • 21870
Re: Double standards
« Reply #268 on: March 04, 2020, 01:19:02 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 09:09:13 AM
I did verify it. It predicts several effects which RE does not. See the 'evidence' section at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Your "evidence" is a joke and in absolutely no way is a result of bendy light.

Instead it is merely a result of our eyes, and vision in general, working with 2 angular dimensions and people wanting to represent things in 2 Cartesian dimensions.

Do you have any actual evidence?
Or does your EA just work to make the world look round?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 10:55:02 AM
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
So you showed it doesn't work with a particular 3D model with no connection to the RE model.
It doesn't even appear to try and match what is seen.
Just what do you think that proves?

How about you try making up a 3D model in something like POV-ray, based upon RE numbers or things similar to them?
Then you can provide the POV-ray files for people to look at and confirm all the model details and know for sure if RE and perspective can explain it?

And then also provide the math for EA so we can calculate any light path.
And then explain why this allows seeing things which allegedly disprove a Round Earth, such as the claims of the FE high prophet Row boat, that you can see things at water level, from water level, even though EA would make that impossible?

Your dismissal of the perspective arguments is also quite laughable.
For one example, the point of moving the camera around wasn't to try and show that people are looking at the moon from different perspectives.
It is to provide a far away view showing how the moon is pointing towards the sun, and then an up-close view similar to what we see which causes the illusion, showing that the moon appears to be pointing away.

So what is actually wrong with the moon tilt illusion? What makes it incompatible with the RE?
From what I can see it is explained quite simply with RE and perspective with no need for any magic EA.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 12:07:36 PM
Every time we discussed the content of the link on the websites, and again just now, when you responded with a question rather than a rebuttal and answer.
And it seems every time you just post a link to your website and pretend it answers everything, while putting in no effort yourself.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 01:21:29 PM by JackBlack »
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Double standards
« Reply #269 on: March 04, 2020, 03:02:20 PM »
Quote from: Stash
In the Myers paper you cite several times in the wiki they explain, "The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun." As well there is a whole section on how to express/predict the degree of the illusion. I didn't see any EA predictive qualities in the wiki.

Literally, the string experiment is all you need. You tried to counter that with the lying on the ground thing with a tree top and a cabin roof with something about 190 degrees of view (humans binocular stand around 120 degrees) but that example didn't make any sense.

The string is all you need.

Actually, Myers says that light curving on the the "celestial sphere" is causing it.

The string experiment is addressed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#String_Experiment and does not explain or demonstrate anything about where the Moon is pointing.

Quote
Thanks.
Your article doesnt show two things.
1.Perspective of someone on earth looking at a far moon lit up by an even farther sun.
2.your fe model (unless i missed it).

1. The link contains many visualizations. If you want something special, make it for your argument.
2. https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Quote from: Alpha2Omega
It's called an illusion because that's what it is... an illusion.

"The Moon Tilt Illusion is an illusion because it has the word illusion in the name" is a joke of an argument.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Here's a post from the thread that illustrates a blunder in the incorrect idea you were touting:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77362.msg2090715#msg2090715

In this post you are arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion does not occur and that all pictures of it are fish-eye, that the illuminated portion of the Moon actually points at the Sun. This is false, and was pointed out to you in that thread. It is also seen with the naked eye, and is admitted to be seen with the naked eye in the sources in the tfes.org wiki link.

Quote from: JackBlack
Instead it is merely a result of our eyes, and vision in general, working with 2 angular dimensions and people wanting to represent things in 2 Cartesian dimensions.

Arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion is a result of a 3D world represented in 2D on our eyes is another joke, by someone who is clearly incapable of explaining this.

All of your "arguments" should be demonstrable by objects and rooms in our environment. Straight lines should not look straight and arrows should not point at what they are pointing at. Instead, we are presented with wild speculation passed off as truth. We are given trash, in the utter failure to explain this.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 03:08:05 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Up
« previous next »