Debunking the 'law of perspective'

Quote from: Midnight on June 11, 2007, 10:47:28 AM

I'd rather watch you make a fool of yourself with random attempts at making me look bad.

A - In order for me to look bad, the text of mine you quote needs to, you know, actually showcase me being an idiot.

You are an idiot of the medieval type. To say that the eye can’t see what’s further than some distance (in free space) is plain ignorance. Then, you got deeper in the shit when you said that we don’t see Polaris, but only rhe light coming from it. Of course, you Texan retard. How can the light now when to stop and not hit our retina? And, remember, you claim to be a photographer.

The other points are not important. It’s something like the thing you keep inventing that I’m Tom or Fecals. For all I know, you maybe Tom Bishop.

A - Your reponse doesn't answer my previous post.

B - If my other points were not important, why are you claiming they are wrong?

A - Your reponse doesn't answer my previous post.

You're just being stuborn to the point of looking like an idiot. Troll.

B - If my other points were not important, why are you claiming they are wrong?

They ARE NOT important BECAUSE they ARE WRONG!

Fantastic non-evidenciary rebuttal.

You win the Nothing Prize, again.

Fantastic non-evidenciary rebuttal.

You win the Nothing Prize, again.

The evidence is your post. See my signature for details. Troll.

I'm not a FE-er, but I bet I can defend (or attack) it better than the rest of the retards here. Like I said, you did not take into account the possibility of light curving for various reasons.

Haha.. umm that's very broad. Please explain specifically how light would have to curve to affect what Trig said with respect to seeing a clearly defined disk without distortion that does not change in size, despite the fact that it should. Glare was Tom's answer, but obviously various filters on his telescopes or anyone else's could be used to eliminate that, and sunspots could also be used as indicators that anything was being distorted. Also, how would that affect the speed of sun across the sky that I mentioned and that you can check using Gulliver's program? I'm not saying you're an FEer, but I've noticed that one of the bs answers they throw out when they don't know what to say is that 'oh..you know.. light would just bend somehow.' Unfortunatellly that doesn't cut it. You'd have to specifiy just how would light bend in such a way that it masks the effects mentioned, while keeping all features (sunspots for sun or recognizable craters for the moon) in perfect proportions creating a hell of a convincing illusion. That's a hell of a lot for some 'light curving' to do.

Quote from: Bushido on June 12, 2007, 12:03:37 AM

I'm not a FE-er, but I bet I can defend (or attack) it better than the rest of the retards here. Like I said, you did not take into account the possibility of light curving for various reasons.

Haha.. umm that's very broad. Please explain specifically how light would have to curve to affect what Trig said with respect to seeing a clearly defined disk without distortion that does not change in size, despite the fact that it should. Glare was Tom's answer, but obviously various filters on his telescopes or anyone else's could be used to eliminate that, and sunspots could also be used as indicators that anything was being distorted. Also, how would that affect the speed of sun across the sky that I mentioned and that you can check using Gulliver's program? I'm not saying you're an FEer, but I've noticed that one of the bs answers they throw out when they don't know what to say is that 'oh..you know.. light would just bend somehow.' Unfortunatellly that doesn't cut it. You'd have to specifiy just how would light bend in such a way that it masks the effects mentioned, while keeping all features (sunspots for sun or recognizable craters for the moon) in perfect proportions creating a hell of a convincing illusion. That's a hell of a lot for some 'light curving' to do.

The FE theory is obviously in conflict to every scientific theory we know of, particularly gravity and (geometrical) optics. I think it is more logical to assume that light curves (in FE theory) than some mambo – jumbo about the Shadow Object and waves obscuring the view.

Note: If there is a plane field large enough, a distant object would still disappear behind the horizon. Where would the waves be in that case?

lol yeah but inventing new ways that light can bend just out of the blue to conveniently account for observations that blatantly stand against the theory is just as mambo-jumbo as a shadow object or waves obscuring the view or whatever. if they're gonna invent new phenomena, they should really show some proof that these elusive and convenient phenomena exist.

to answer your note: if there is a plane field large enough, according to FE a distant object would dissapear behind the horizon due to 'perspective', namely rowbotham's odd interpretation of it that somehow makes everything dissapear from the ground up (one of the things I attacked in my first post). in reality an object such as a large disk or ball would simply shrink though, it wouldn't sink into the horizon like the sun does by getting farther away, although Rowbotham's interpretation of perspective would have you believe that. Rowbotham gives some supposed examples of this phenomenon happening, but in each case the object near the surface is smaller than the whole (i.e. a person's black shoes as compared to their white outfit) so one would expect that if one got far enough away, one would indeed get to the point where he/she could only see the white outfit and not the black shoes. but this would not because they 'sink' into the ground, but rather that they would 'shrink' and be too small for the resolution of the human eye to pick them up while the larger white outfit would still be distinguishable (the phenomeon is completelly consistent with an object moving farther away and thus appearing to 'shrink' but Rowbotham misuses it as 'proof' that objects appear to 'sink' the farther away they get.) in any case, by Rowbotham's own admission, in such a case a telescope would always bring the complete object back into sight (provided it has not been completelly obscured by the atmosphere). the reason a telescope doesn't bring the object back into sight on sea is due to the 'compounded waves'. again, complete bullshit in as far as I can tell, and the FEs pussyfoot around these questions like there's no tomorrow.

We seem to have gone off topic, as you guys haven't really said anything of value in a while.

Dead thread?

Well I'm still waiting for FE responses to my, Trig's and YetAnotherSkeptic's rebuttals. and also to Gulliver's sunspots.xlsx program. but this is what always happens when good points are brought up against FE.

We should start a new FAQ that contains only the questions that FET fails to answer adequately.  There're at least 3.

That's actually a pretty good idea. Althpugh re write the current FAQ, we all know it's full of crap.

That's actually a pretty good idea. Althpugh re write the current FAQ, we all know it's full of crap.

I've started it.

I can't contain my excrement!

That's actually a pretty good idea. Althpugh re write the current FAQ, we all know it's full of crap.

Here's the first draft. It's weak, I know. But I hope you'll help with some feedback. Let me know if you need a Word 2003 version.
http://rapidshare.com/files/37100377/A_Primer_for_Round_Earthers_on_the_Flat_Earth_Theory.docx.html

I'll read it as soon as I get a compatibility pack for my computer- you're using newer Word than me.

I'll read it as soon as I get a compatibility pack for my computer- you're using newer Word than me.

Sorry. Here is a 2003 version:    http://rapidshare.com/files/37194615/A_Primer_for_Round_Earthers_on_the_Flat_Earth_Theory_2003.doc.html

Thanks, although I'd already read it. I think it's a little dismissive of certain things. Intead of saying 'has not been proven', say 'has yet to be discussed'. Or something. I think its very well written though.

Thanks, although I'd already read it. I think it's a little dismissive of certain things. Intead of saying 'has not been proven', say 'has yet to be discussed'. Or something. I think its very well written though.

I'll address your concerns in the next version. Thank you so much for the feedback.

The document is innacurate in several respects, which I'd like you to consider appending in the next version.

(Note, I'm not talking "innacurate" in terms of RE vs FE, rather in what is actually believe by FE proponents (and which proponents believe what)).

I do not intend this post as any sort of attack, rather as a rare collaboration between sides in an effort to enable better understanding of the theories invloved, and more reasonable debate based on this understanding.

Here goes.

In the dogplatter (2007) variation the UA is composed of dark matter and also accelerates all objects in the sky except for the Sun and Moon by reach around the Earth and supporting those objects as well. In the Tom Bishop (2007) variation the UA is a natural consequence of the Big Bang.

I didn't make up the UA model I've presented on these forums. It's been banded around for years. Also, in the model I've advocated, the UA is also the natural consequence of a Big Bang (there is no dispute between me and Tom on this, as you seem to infer).

It does not adequately explain the variation of gravity with altitude either.

I believe certain models do address this, while others deny its existence. Perhaps this should be mentioned.

It is a sphere with a diameter of 32 miles.

There is controversy over whether it is a sphere or also a flat(ish) shape.

All three acceleration and the lack of conservation of angular momentum are unexplained. The mechanism by which the Sun is held aloft from the Earth accelerating towards it is unexplained, though the dogplatter (2007) variation proposes without support that the photoelectric effect is responsible.

This is inaccurate. Again, the model I am advocated was not pulled out of a hat earlier this year as you seem to suggest, but has been held by many FE advocates (partially and in full) for many years. I am also not responsible for the development of the photoelectric suspension theory - it was almost entirely laid out in an article a few years back by another FE theorist.

In the dogplatter (2007) variation, the Ice Wall is much higher in order to contain the atmolayer.

As I've mentioned, please don't try and make out that I've pulled all my debate material out of my own ass on a whim - controversy over the height and exact nature of the Ice Wall has been raging for decades, long before this site was ever created.

In FE, the stars are only 3100 miles about the Earth.

This is not a universally held FE belief and should not be presented as such.

That's all - as far as can see your terminology section is entirely legit.

Again, please take into consideration what I've said here in a bid not to discredit you, but to improve the RE understanding of FET itself.

The document is innacurate in several respects, which I'd like you to consider appending in the next version.

(Note, I'm not talking "innacurate" in terms of RE vs FE, rather in what is actually believe by FE proponents (and which proponents believe what)).

I do not intend this post as any sort of attack, rather as a rare collaboration between sides in an effort to enable better understanding of the theories invloved, and more reasonable debate based on this understanding.

Here goes.

Quote

In the dogplatter (2007) variation the UA is composed of dark matter and also accelerates all objects in the sky except for the Sun and Moon by reach around the Earth and supporting those objects as well. In the Tom Bishop (2007) variation the UA is a natural consequence of the Big Bang.

I didn't make up the UA model I've presented on these forums. It's been banded around for years. Also, in the model I've advocated, the UA is also the natural consequence of a Big Bang (there is no dispute between me and Tom on this, as you seem to infer).

Quote

It does not adequately explain the variation of gravity with altitude either.

I believe certain models do address this, while others deny its existence. Perhaps this should be mentioned.

Quote

It is a sphere with a diameter of 32 miles.

There is controversy over whether it is a sphere or also a flat(ish) shape.

Quote

All three acceleration and the lack of conservation of angular momentum are unexplained. The mechanism by which the Sun is held aloft from the Earth accelerating towards it is unexplained, though the dogplatter (2007) variation proposes without support that the photoelectric effect is responsible.

This is inaccurate. Again, the model I am advocated was not pulled out of a hat earlier this year as you seem to suggest, but has been held by many FE advocates (partially and in full) for many years. I am also not responsible for the development of the photoelectric suspension theory - it was almost entirely laid out in an article a few years back by another FE theorist.

Quote

In the dogplatter (2007) variation, the Ice Wall is much higher in order to contain the atmolayer.

As I've mentioned, please don't try and make out that I've pulled all my debate material out of my own ass on a whim - controversy over the height and exact nature of the Ice Wall has been raging for decades, long before this site was ever created.

Quote

In FE, the stars are only 3100 miles about the Earth.

This is not a universally held FE belief and should not be presented as such.

That's all - as far as can see your terminology section is entirely legit.

Again, please take into consideration what I've said here in a bid not to discredit you, but to improve the RE understanding of FET itself.

Gladly and heartily accepted. Thank you so very much! Top drawer.