The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Clete]

It seems the density of the atmosphere in the troposphere makes it impossible for us to see through it at great distances. Combine that with objects become to small and even land masses shrink in size and we just can't see beyond a certain distance.

When we look up we are not looking through layers, or miles, of dense atmosphere which is why we can see farther into the sky than we can parallel to the ground.

So, when I say we can't see that far into distance I thought you understood me to mean across the earth not into the sky.



--Dave

We've been discussing perspective and thus the inference was clearly about distance, not how thick the atmosphere is.

If you want to talk about the atmosphere then you're just talking about another obstruction and things, as I've said before, would simply fade into the distance and there would not be the sort of hard horizon line that we are used too, but rather a sort of foggy melting of distance objects into the lower sky. This is precisely because of the thick atmosphere. If there were no atmosphere there would still be a horizon line much like we are used to seeing except that nothing would ever get hidden behind it. Things would simply get smaller and smaller into the distance.

Clete

 

[Clete]

No problem. I still understand your point.

I've been reading up on calculating angular diameter. There are good videos on it.

--Dave

:up:

 

[DFT_Dave]

We've been discussing perspective and thus the inference was clearly about distance, not how thick the atmosphere is.

If you want to talk about the atmosphere then you're just talking about another obstruction and things, as I've said before, would simply fade into the distance and there would not be the sort of hard horizon line that we are used too, but rather a sort of foggy melting of distance objects into the lower sky. This is precisely because of the thick atmosphere. If there were no atmosphere there would still be a horizon line much like we are used to seeing except that nothing would ever get hidden behind it. Things would simply get smaller and smaller into the distance.

Clete

I understand your point.

Yet the prediction of parallel planes seen through our eyes in perspective when ground beneath us and sky above us meet at our eye level there is a hard horizon simply because the earth is a solid.

Now your view, the globe view, has a prediction that the flat earth view does not have.

That a hard horizon means a globe earth is circular reasoning, seems to me, that goes like this:

The earth is a globe and we see the edge when we look at the horizon. We know the earth is a globe because we see the edge at the horizon.

Again, that things get just smaller and smaller is not the complete picture of perspective. Things over head, parallel to the plane (the meaning of a plane is a flat surface) of earth/ground will appear to descend and meet the ground that appears to ascend at our eye level.

That means we will not see anything overhead that is still moving parallel to the earth once it passes beyond the horizon.

So to say we will see things moving parallel to the flat earth would be visible beyond the horizon is not true, not consistent with what it means to see the world in perspective.

That parallel planes meet in perspective at the horizon is basic geometry not art.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

What bothers me is that Dave isn't responding in this discussion. He says the sun changes size, and we say it's lens flare. Is there a way to get rid of lens flare? Sure, easy, photographers do it all the time. Does he do it to learn the truth? Nope. He trots out another video. We say, "Dave, it's not fair that you didn't check lens flare before moving on" and he ignores that. It makes a poor discussion when he does that... and THEN he turns around and claims "THIS IS ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION! DON'T GET FRUSTRATED WITH MY IGNORING YOUR POINTS AND CALLING ME NAMES!"

Dave. Please, check the lens flare. You can do it with a welding mask and a cell phone camera. We got great results with this when the eclipse happened.

I will move on to eclipses but in the past we were jumping to quickly from one aspect of this debate to another. And it was video vs video which I agree was not what this website was really intended for.

I have decided to take the slower route and try to put as much as I can in written arguments and stay focused on one aspect of this at a time.

I liked the video that debunks flat earth in a step by step way so I have been following that pattern in order to keep us all from jumping around to much.

The horizon is the first a most important aspect of flat earth according to this video and I agree with that.

Here is the video I'm trying to use a pattern and trying to answer from the flat earth perspective.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I understand your point.

Yet the prediction of parallel planes seen through our eyes in perspective when ground beneath us and sky above us meet at our eye level there is a hard horizon simply because the earth is a solid.

Now your view, the globe view, has a prediction that the flat earth view does not have.

That a hard horizon means a globe earth is circular reasoning, seems to me, that goes like this:

The earth is a globe and we see the edge when we look at the horizon. We know the earth is a globe because we see the edge at the horizon.

Again, that things get just smaller and smaller is not the complete picture of perspective. Things over head, parallel to the plane (the meaning of a plane is a flat surface) of earth/ground will appear to descend and meet the ground that appears to ascend at our eye level.

That means we will not see anything overhead that is still moving parallel to the earth once it passes beyond the horizon.

So to say we will see things moving parallel to the flat earth would be visible beyond the horizon is not true, not consistent with what it means to see the world in perspective.

That parallel planes meet in perspective at the horizon is basic geometry not art.

--Dave

NOTHING WOULD EVER BE HIDDEN BEHIND THE HORIZON ON A FLAT EARTH!!!

You just cannot be this stupid! Just think it through! What would ever cause anything that was moving parallel to a flat Earth to be hidden by that same Earth?

:dunce::duh:

 

[DFT_Dave]

NOTHING WOULD EVER BE HIDDEN BEHIND THE HORIZON ON A FLAT EARTH!!!

You just cannot be this stupid! Just think it through! What would ever cause anything that was moving parallel to a flat Earth to be hidden by that same Earth?

:dunce::duh:

I just gave you the explanation.

You simply don't believe that explanation is true.

You don't believe in perspective. I get that.

Anyway, I'm gong to graph out my own flat earth perspective matrix.

There is site called, "Trying to understand the math behind the perspective matrix", but that's not for the flat earth.

View attachment 26576

This is the graph/illustration that is the object of contention. If this fails then flat earth fails. If perspective is actually how we see the world then flat earth succeeds on this point but only if the sun and moon are small and close the earth. And yes, a change in size would be required. But there are those who say it does and of course those who say it does not.

Rather than make one graph with all the aspects in it, I'll make a number of simplified ones that show one aspect at a time.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I just gave you the explanation.

You simply don't believe that explanation is true.

It isn't a matter of belief!

You make claims that are patently stupid and then when I can't take it any more you whine like a baby for calling you stupid!

There is no way for ANYTHING to EVER be hidden behind the horizon on a flat Earth. The horizon, if you could even make it out, is simply the line that delineates those things that are on the Earth from those things that are arent!!!

There would be no such thing as a ship disappearing over the horizon at all, never mind from the bottom up. The ship (or mountain or building or whatever) would either be visible or it would be so far into the distance as to be too tiny to discern.

You don't believe in perspective. I get that.

Perspective is not a matter of belief!

I know FOR A FACT what perspective is and PRECISELY what causes it and have given detailed descriptions of exactly how it works and why.

IT IS YOU WHO DON'T BELIEVE IT!

Anyway, I'm gong to graph out my own flat earth perspective matrix.

It will be a worthless waste of your time if you do anything other draw a matrix where the distance between grid lines shrink with the inverse of their distance. (i.e. half the distance between line with double the distance from the observer, etc)

Here's a hint. When drawn in two dimensions, perspective lines are arbitrary because you can say the Z axis (Distance) is whatever you want it to be.

In other words, you have to define terms BEFORE you draw your matrix or it's meaningless. You'll find it impossible to draw and for what you draw to match what you can see for yourself every single day of your life.

There is site called, "Trying to understand the math behind the perspective matrix", but that's not for the flat earth.

So why bring it up?

I dare you to read it long enough to understand it.

View attachment 26576

This is the graph/illustration that is the object of contention. If this fails then flat earth fails. If perspective is actually how we see the world then flat earth succeeds on this point but only if the sun and moon are small and close the earth. And yes, a change in size would be required. But there are those who say it does and of course those who say it does not.

Rather than make one graph with all the aspects in it, I'll make a number of simplified ones that show one aspect at a time.

--Dave

I simply cannot believe that you think that idiotic graph is worth even 10 seconds of your time. It's asinine on it's face! There is no such thing as an actual banishing point, David. Parallel lines do not ever actually intersect at a point far off into the distance. The so called vanishing point has to do with art theory, not science. If it exists in any sense at all its merely the point at which the apparent size of an object drops below the resolution of your eye (i.e. becomes microscopic). This point would be pushed back with any sort of telescope and ignoring atmospheric distortions and other effects, for the sake of argument, it could be pushed back indefinitely given sufficient magnification. It's no different than magnifying a bacterium under a microscope. The only difference is the actual size of the object in question and the distances involved.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

View attachment 26577

The horizon is where sky meets earth at our eye level. The path of the sun and our path on flat earth are parallel. No matter where we look along the horizon there's a distance we cannot see beyond. The sun will simply merge into the horizon and the distance in elevation will not be detectable. The solid land mass will still give us a solid, or as you say hard, horizon line.

View attachment 26578

Landscapes and cityscapes that rise above the horizon block our view of it before it reaches the horizon. Clouds at the horizon can also block our view of the sun before it reaches the horizon.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

NOTHING WOULD EVER BE HIDDEN BEHIND THE HORIZON ON A FLAT EARTH!!!

You just cannot be this stupid! Just think it through! What would ever cause anything that was moving parallel to a flat Earth to be hidden by that same Earth?

:dunce::duh:

Dave did not seem stupid when the thread began, but then things changed.

 

[Right Divider]

View attachment 26577

The horizon is where sky meets earth at our eye level.

No... the horizon is where the sky meets the earth PERIOD!

If you are up on Mount Everest, the horizon will be well BELOW your "eye level"

The path of the sun and our path on flat earth are parallel.

If that were true, you could ALWAYS see the sun because it is ALWAYS at least a few degrees ABOVE the horizon.
View attachment 26579

No matter where we look along the horizon there's a distance we cannot see beyond.

What BLOCKS our view?

(For all of you fun lovers out there, Dave one said that the atmosphere near the horizon was "more like a brick wall" with regards to this issue. Yes, he's way out there).

The sun will simply merge into the horizon and the distance in elevation will not be detectable.

Pure SPECULATION on your part Mr, FE

OBSERVABLE FACTS say otherwise.

The solid land mass will still give us a solid, or as you say hard, horizon line.

Irrelevant.

View attachment 26578

Landscapes and cityscapes that rise above the horizon block our view of it before it reaches the horizon. Clouds at the horizon can also block our view of the sun before it reaches the horizon.

Back to the SPECIAL CASES.... once again IRRELEVANT to the NORMAL CASE.

 

[DFT_Dave]

No... the horizon is where the sky meets the earth PERIOD!

If you are up on Mount Everest, the horizon will be well BELOW your "eye level"

If that were true, you could ALWAYS see the sun because it is ALWAYS at least a few degrees ABOVE the horizon.

View attachment 26579

What BLOCKS our view?

(For all of you fun lovers out there, Dave one said that the atmosphere near the horizon was "more like a brick wall" with regards to this issue. Yes, he's way out there).

Pure SPECULATION on your part Mr, FE

OBSERVABLE FACTS say otherwise.

Irrelevant.

Back to the SPECIAL CASES.... once again IRRELEVANT to the NORMAL CASE.

View attachment 26579 View attachment 26580

Your graph does not consider perspective as mine does so it does not represent how we actually see the world.

Everything I have said is true about how we see the world in perspective. Get real.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

View attachment 26579 View attachment 26580

Your graph does not consider perspective as mine does so it does not represent how we actually see the world.

YES IT DOES, Dave. If the earth was flat, the sun would never dip below 9 degrees above the horizon. Yet, as has been shown many times in both threads, the sun not only dips below the 9 degrees, but goes BELOW THE HORIZON.

Everything I have said is true about how we see the world in perspective. Get real.

--Dave

No, Dave, YOU get real. Hardly anything you have put forth in these threads has been partly accurate, let alone true.

 

[Right Divider]

View attachment 26579 View attachment 26580

Your graph does not consider perspective as mine does so it does not represent how we actually see the world.

Baloney. The two show COMPLETELY different THINGS.

Mine shows YOUR model for the FE.

In YOUR MODEL, the sun is at a MINIMUM (at your supposed "sunset") 9 degrees ABOVE the horizon.

If this were true (it's not, your model is a complete FAILURE), the sun would ALWAYS be easily visible using a simple telescope.

Everything I have said is true about how we see the world in perspective. Get real.

--Dave

You must enjoy being completely WRONG all of the time.

 

[DFT_Dave]

YES IT DOES, Dave. If the earth was flat, the sun would never dip below 9 degrees above the horizon. Yet, as has been shown many times in both threads, the sun not only dips below the 9 degrees, but goes BELOW THE HORIZON.

No, Dave, YOU get real. Hardly anything you have put forth in these threads has been partly accurate, let alone true.

My graph is irrefutably geometrically accurate.

The sun on a flat earth will come down to the horizon and move past it beyond our ability to see it.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

My graph is irrefutably geometrically accurate.

The sun on a flat earth will come down to the horizon and move past it beyond our ability to see it.

--Dave

:rotfl:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Baloney. The two show COMPLETELY different THINGS.

Mine shows YOUR model for the FE.

In YOUR MODEL, the sun is at a MINIMUM (at your supposed "sunset") 9 degrees ABOVE the horizon.

If this were true (it's not, your model is a complete FAILURE), the sun would ALWAYS be easily visible using a simple telescope.

Your must enjoy being completely WRONG all of the time.

Geometry in perspective sucks for you guys, I get it.

That's why you don't use it.

By ignoring it you present a false view and a false prediction of flat earth.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Geometry in perspective sucks for you guys, I get it.

That's why you don't use it.

By ignoring it you present a false view and a false prediction of flat earth.

--Dave

Pure and utter nonsense Dave.

I showed you the ACTUAL and FACTUAL result of YOUR BOGUS MODEL.

That you cannot understand even the simplest of things (a triangle) is just amazing.

Your are a bold faced LIAR!

 

[DFT_Dave]

Pure and utter nonsense Dave.

I showed you the ACTUAL and FACTUAL result of YOUR BOGUS MODEL.

That you cannot understand even the simplest of things (a triangle) is just amazing.

Your are a bold faced LIAR!

Your graph does "not" show the sun overhead nor into the distance in perspective.

My graph shows the sun overhead and how it descends into the distance in perspective.

Your graph does not tell the whole story mine does.

--Dave

PS In geometry not everything is a triangle. But I'm not going to call you stupid or a liar for seemingly not knowing this or ignoring it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

View attachment 26579 View attachment 26580

Your graph does not consider perspective as mine does so it does not represent how we actually see the world.

Everything I have said is true about how we see the world in perspective. Get real.

--Dave

Your graph may consider perspective but it does not accurately represent what is actually observed. Your graph predicts that the sun will be smaller in the morning and the evening and larger at mid day. Observations of the sun indicate that from sun up to sun down, the sun is always exactly the same size. This is a point you consistently ignore.

Secondly, the Flat Earth model requires that the sun be above the disc at all times. It is not possible for it to ever dip below a horizon. It is always above the Earth. This would mean that the sun would always be visible from all parts of the Earth. Again, this does not match observed phenomena. When it is night in the USA, not one telescope can find any trace of the sun in its field of view. You could go out at night with a great telescope of your own and you would never be able to see the sun. There are two possible answers. 1) The sun has some sort of shielding around it that prevents you from seeing it. (This is not actually possible as even with a cut off shield, you would still be able to see the light shining down onto the world below.) 2) The sun is not in the sky during the night. This is a huge problem for your position as if the sun is not in the sky, where did it go? Remember, the Flat Earth model requires that the sun is above the disc of the Earth by some 3000 miles and it traces a circle over the disk. Again, your predictions do not match what you can personally observe.

 

[chair]

Dave, you've gone over some "event horizon".
You aren't stupid. It's a shame you insist on behaving as if you are.