Philosophical Vegan Forum

I don't really understand the difference between those two horizons. Are you saying that the Sun should appear CLOSER to the horizon if you are in the airplane, and not the opposite? How come then do you see the sunset twice if you watch it once sitting and then quickly stand up? (The Flat Earth Theory explains this as the Sun being only 3000 miles up in the sky, so, when you stand up, the angel at which you see the Sun actually changes.)
Besides, because of the perspective/the shape of the Earth, the sky itself appears round. So does the path of the Sun. So, when looked from the ground, the Sun should almost always be bellow some clouds (unless it is in zenith). Yet the bottoms of clouds in zenith are never illuminated, right?

Jebus wrote:Teo, do you also believe that our sun, moon, and the other planets are flat?

Well, the Flat Earth Theory isn't unified about this, but, to me, the simplest explanation seems that they are round. They don't change their apparent shape as they move around the sky (or as you move on the ground). If they were any other shape, they would seem to be the different shape based on whether they are in zenith or near the horizon, right?
Of course, this doesn't work when it comes to constellations. We can't claim they are round, yet they evidently don't change their shape based on where they are in the sky. Some Flat Earhters claim that it is because the laws of perspective don't apply to the celestial objects because they are simply too big and too far away. Other Flat Earthers claim that we don't actually see the celestial objects, but only their mirages. Of those who claim that we see only mirages of the constellations, there are those who claim that there is some undiscovered law of nature that makes those mirages consistent in shapes. There are also those who claim that them being consistent in shape is a coincidence and they probably wouldn't appear the same shape to someone beyond the Ice Wall (at the edge of the Flat Earth).
Notice that all of those hypothesis predict that if you take a high-altitude photograph with an exposure long enough for the shapes of constellations to be visible, those shapes should be very different than the way they look on the ground. So these hypothesis are theoretically falsifiable.
If you want to learn more, join the Flat Earth Society Forum.

teo123 wrote:I don't really understand the difference between those two horizons.

See the diagram I made. Any surface which creates a shell around the Earth can create a new horizon.

The horizon created by the ocean is a little different from the horizon created by the ground on a high elevation plateau.
The horizon created by unbroken cloud surface is significantly different.

teo123 wrote:Are you saying that the Sun should appear CLOSER to the horizon if you are in the airplane, and not the opposite?

No, it appears farther from the ground horizon, IF you can see the ground horizon. The images you showed do not show the ground horizon, they show a higher level horizon created by the cloud surface.
See the diagram.

teo123 wrote:How come then do you see the sunset twice if you watch it once sitting and then quickly stand up?

Because of parallax with the horizon. I discussed this in the post before the one prior to this. Basically, the sun seems to stay in the same position, and the Earth moves out of your way relative to this. You can see this clearly in the diagram.

The horizon made from clouds is different from that created by the ground. You could also watch the sun set twice over the cloud horizon if your airplane increased in altitude more. You won't have seen it set over the ground horizon, though, because the clouds are blocking your view of the ground.

teo123 wrote:(The Flat Earth Theory explains this as the Sun being only 3000 miles up in the sky, so, when you stand up, the angel at which you see the Sun actually changes.)

Flat Earth is not a theory, theories make testable predictions which have been confirmed. Stop abusing the word: You're doing the same thing "Intelligent Design" proponents are doing in calling a non-theory assertion a theory.

Flat Earth fails to explain how the sun sets at all. They have to evoke magically curving light in attempt to do so, which can be easily demonstrated to be false.
If you disagree, then draw a diagram.

teo123 wrote:Besides, because of the perspective/the shape of the Earth, the sky itself appears round. So does the path of the Sun.

What are you talking about?
Draw a diagram.

teo123 wrote:So, when looked from the ground, the Sun should almost always be bellow some clouds (unless it is in zenith).

The sun is always visually below some clouds, because it is ALWAYS sunset somewhere on Earth. It is never actually below clouds, it just appears so as the light comes in from a lower angle relative to the ground. Different places are different times of day, depending on the angle to the sun.
At noon you can not see these places because they are over the horizon.

teo123 wrote:Yet the bottoms of clouds in zenith are never illuminated, right?

What are you talking about?
Noon is at different times for different places. Right now it's noon somewhere, and it's midnight somewhere, and it's sunrise somewhere and sunset somewhere.
You can not see these other places, because they are around the sides and backs of the Earth where your view is blocked by the Earth.

Only places in sunrise and sunset have the sunlight coming in at an angle below the clouds, so only here are they illuminated from below due to the low angle. At places where it is noon, they are illuminated from above as they should be.

No, it appears farther from the ground horizon, IF you can see the ground horizon. The images you showed do not show the ground horizon, they show a higher level horizon created by the cloud surface.
See the diagram.

So, the horizon isn't always at your eyeline (as the Flat Earthers claim)? I must say that's something new to me.
Look, I still have no bright idea how does the Round Earth Theory even explain the fact that the horizon seems to rise with you when you climb.

What are you talking about?
Draw a diagram.

Here we go, it is in the attachments! You are simply straw manning the Flat Earth Theory! Nobody is claiming that the Flat Earth has no changes in the surface! Of course there are waves and even mountains! So it is not surprising that there is a time when the top part of the sun is visible, while the bottom isn't!

What are you talking about?
Draw a diagram.

Why don't you simply look out through the window? The sky definitely does appear curved.

teo123 wrote:Notice that all of those hypothesis predict that if you take a high-altitude photograph with an exposure long enough for the shapes of constellations to be visible, those shapes should be very different than the way they look on the ground. So these hypothesis are theoretically falsifiable.

Nonsense, they do no such thing.

teo123 wrote: Of course, this doesn't work when it comes to constellations. We can't claim they are round, yet they evidently don't change their shape based on where they are in the sky.

That's a lie.
Of course Flat Earthers can claim they're round. As soon as I showed you proof they were, you'd say "Well OK, Guess those are round but the Earth is still flat. Haha I win!"

Understand that I trust your honesty about as much as I trust a viper in my lap. You have a long way to come to prove me wrong on that account, and all you're doing is proving me right with these dishonest arguments. You can't even admit something is unfalsifiable.

teo123 wrote: Some Flat Earhters claim that it is because the laws of perspective don't apply to the celestial objects because they are simply too big and too far away.

Of course they're big and far away. So why bother claiming they're flat at all?

But of course the laws still apply (that's absurd to say there's a cutoff): http://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html
Changes are just very small. Nothing is immune to these laws of mathematics. That's logically absurd.

Aside from the obvious motion of nearby bodies (like other planets) which you can also observe at home, the existence of parallax perspective from distant stars also proves how the Earth moves, since nearby stars predictably shift around based on the time of the year from the parallax due to the Earth's motion around the sun (we're talking about anybody with a high powered telescope being in on the conspiracy).

Of course, Flat Earthers can just claim that the stars are round, far away, and that the Earth moves in a circular fashion while it's accelerating through space, and that all of the stars are also accelerating through space to keep a more or less consistent distance from the Earth.
Or they'll claim that the stars are flat, but always like to face the Earth because magic.

Basically, just change their ad-hoc hypothesis to match reality when they're forced to, and otherwise stick to their core dogma.

By the way, parallax also proves that the sun is not 3000 miles away (which is a claim that is beyond moronic):

http://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-i ... -distance/
You can easily measure the distance to the moon with a single friend using basic trig, and it's 238,900 miles away. Closer measurements like that are child's play.

We can't measure the distance to the sun so easily, because it's both MUCH farther, and much larger: http://www.eso.org/public//outreach/edu ... on/solpar/
But it can be done by individuals too through careful collaboration.
You can easily prove that it's very far away, though (much farther than the moon).

teo123 wrote:Other Flat Earthers claim that we don't actually see the celestial objects, but only their mirages. Of those who claim that we see only mirages of the constellations, there are those who claim that there is some undiscovered law of nature that makes those mirages consistent in shapes. There are also those who claim that them being consistent in shape is a coincidence and they probably wouldn't appear the same shape to someone beyond the Ice Wall (at the edge of the Flat Earth).

NONE of these are falsifiable hypotheses.
The first two clearly make no predictions and just appeal to some unknown and untestable phenomena, and the third one only says "probably" but could still write it off as a "coincidence" (which is undefined and unexplained, and so not a prediction either), and relies at heart on the convenient conspiracy theory that the ice wall is so well guarded it's impossible to go see it be definition.

Go ahead: Go to the ice wall. Take some pictures of the edge of the world. Can you? No. Then fuck off with your unfalsifiable assertions.
You need to be intellectually honest enough to understand when an assertion is not falsifiable.

I'm telling you things you can easily test here, now, as an individual or with a single friend.
Find some friend you trust, and calculate the distance to the moon. Can you do the same with the sun? No. It's much farther away than that. We can even prove how far away (minimum) it must be based on the precision of our instruments.

Either you're just a liar, or you're so ignorant you don't understand the notions you're advocating or what falsifiable actually means. These are obviously nothing of the sort. You need to take a dose of humility and intellectual honesty, and admit these beliefs are not scientific, and stop calling Flat Earth a theory.

The only one of these that is anything like falsifiable is a logically false claim, of course perspective applies to distant bodies, it's just a smaller change that's harder to observe without taking into account the movement of the Earth.

teo123 wrote: So, the horizon isn't always at your eyeline (as the Flat Earthers claim)?

Of course it isn't. The higher you get, the farther down you have to look to see the Earth. AND the more obviously curved the horizon becomes.

Until all you see is this: http://spaceinfo.com.au/wp-content/uplo ... on_575.jpg

A little speck.

teo123 wrote:Look, I still have no bright idea how does the Round Earth Theory even explain the fact that the horizon seems to rise with you when you climb.

When you climb, you look down to see the horizon. Your head can tilt; it is not a machine designed to be perfectly level. Instead, we are naturally prone to find the horizon and adjust our view based on it. So, your head is tilting down without you realizing it to find the horizon and center your view there.

The horizon moves very slowly, though; you have to move a great distance to see significant change.
You would need to use a level and a camera to compare the horizon in photographs.

Would you like to try this at home?

teo123 wrote: Why don't you simply look out through the window? The sky definitely does appear curved.

It doesn't appear round because of perspective, it appears bowed because of perspective (this is very different), but a parallel line appears to converge at a distance, the ends do not disappear unless it actually curved out of view due to a curved surface. It appears round in addition to being bowed because it's round. This is why things disappear behind the horizon even when unobscured by objects between.

If the Earth were flat, a sufficiently powerful telescope should be able to see a much greater distance until either being blocked by something too tall to see behind it (like a mountain) or obscured by atmosphere.

On a Round Earth with a flat ground (relative to gravity), the horizon is only about three miles away from human eye level, at which point the ground curves away and is invisible, and objects start vanishing behind it bottom first (with the top being the last part that is visible).

Flat Earthers try to explain this using magical light that bends in impossible ways. This is easily demonstrated to be false.
I believe I saw you trying to explain this with appeal to large ocean waves. This is also easily demonstrated to be false.

EDIT: I saw your diagram. It doesn't make any sense. You need to explain better what you're talking about if my explanation above doesn't cover it.

Nonsense, they do no such thing.

They do! First one with the perspective predicts that because, well, the celestial bodies are closer when you are high up in the sky, so it is to be expected that then the laws of perspective would apply to them. Other two are with mirages! Mirages are created by the refraction of the light of the air! And up, on the high altitude, there is no air necessary to create a mirage! Therefore, the constellations should look differently if you go above the atmosphere!

That's a lie.
Of course Flat Earthers can claim they're round. As soon as I showed you proof they were, you'd say "Well OK, Guess those are round but the Earth is still flat. Haha I win!"

How the hell would you claim that something shaped like Orion is at the same time a sphere?!

Aside from the obvious motion of nearby bodies (like other planets) which you can also observe at home, the existence of parallax perspective from distant stars also proves how the Earth moves, since nearby stars predictably shift around based on the time of the year from the parallax due to the Earth's motion around the sun (we're talking about anybody with a high powered telescope being in on the conspiracy).

And why couldn't their apparent movements be caused by their ACTUAL movements?

Basically, just change their ad-hoc hypothesis to match reality when they're forced to, and otherwise stick to their core dogma.

Well, how is evolution any different? Except, of course, you see the Earth being flat every time you look out through the window.

http://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-i ... -distance/
You can easily measure the distance to the moon with a single friend using basic trig, and it's 238,900 miles away. Closer measurements like that are child's play.

"It’s a simple matter of tracking and timing how long it takes the Earth’s shadow to cross over the Moon."
Again, this presupposes the Round Earth Theory! According to the Flat Earth Theory, the lunar eclipses aren't caused by the earths shadow (which would be elliptical if the Earth were flat), but by the so-called Shadow Object. So, this is nothing more than circular reasoning.

Finally we are talking!

When you climb, you look down to see the horizon. Your head can tilt; it is not a machine designed to be perfectly level. Instead, we are naturally prone to find the horizon and adjust our view based on it. So, your head is tilting down without you realizing it to find the horizon and center your view there.
The horizon moves very slowly, though; you have to move a great distance to see significant change.
You would need to use a level and a camera to compare the horizon in photographs.

Well, this is a photo from the Mount Everest!

You can clearly see that the apparent horizon is way above the eye level!
See the problem? Your statement is unfalsifiable. You didn't prove that the Earth is round, your statement is just a conjecture!
Also, why don't you give me the numbers? Seriously, how can you calculate the angle at which you see the horizon assuming that the Earth is round?

If the Earth were flat, a sufficiently powerful telescope should be able to see a much greater distance until either being blocked by something too tall to see behind it (like a mountain) or obscured by atmosphere.

But it is!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki ... he+horizon
"We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes. It has been found that the sinking ship effect effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a 'hill of water.'; Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex earth.In the chapter 'Disappearance of ships at sea'; of the book Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read a number of accounts where the hulls of half sunken ships have been restored by the aid of a telescope:"
And the same goes for camera zooming! When optically zoomed, the bottoms of the ships reappear! I haven't bothered to try this myself, but why shouldn't I trust the you-tubers showing that? How could they possibly fake that?!
Also, I bet you haven't tested that statement yourself.

I believe I saw you trying to explain this with appeal to large ocean waves. This is also easily demonstrated to be false.

How? There are always some small lumps and bumps on the surface to hide the celestial bodies, right?

teo123 wrote: "It’s a simple matter of tracking and timing how long it takes the Earth’s shadow to cross over the Moon."
Again, this presupposes the Round Earth Theory! According to the Flat Earth Theory, the lunar eclipses aren't caused by the earths shadow (which would be elliptical if the Earth were flat), but by the so-called Shadow Object. So, this is nothing more than circular reasoning.

I know that, read the whole page, not just the first paragraph. It covers multiple methods which come to the same conclusion. This is called concordance. We do not typically use just one method to determine scientific fact, that's profound ignorance (irresponsible and immoral ignorance) on your part.

teo123 wrote: They do! First one with the perspective predicts that because, well, the celestial bodies are closer when you are high up in the sky, so it is to be expected that then the laws of perspective would apply to them.

Exactly how much should they be expected to shift? What's the metric by which it is falsified? You need to give me numbers. Do the math, and say how much they should shift.
If you go up on a high building (a couple thousand feet) or on a mountain, and you don't see the expected shift, you must abandon the hypothesis.
This is not something Flat Earthers do.

teo123 wrote: Other two are with mirages! Mirages are created by the refraction of the light of the air!

Refraction operates by specific rules, and visual displacement could be measured easily on the ground. You fail to understand optics well enough to make this argument. To a Flat Earther, a "mirage" is a special kind of magic.
If you want to make predictions, then make predictions: Show me the math. Do you even understand optics well enough to do that? No, you do not.

Mirages are like fun house mirrors. If there is an actual model being presented, then there are predictable changes as you move relative to the refractive body.
Flat Earthers present no coherent model and make no predictions based on it.

Flat Earthers have no interest in making a falsifiable theory, so they are using "mirage" as a science sounding stand in for a magical explanation. There is no solid hypothesis there, just a vague assertion.

teo123 wrote: And up, on the high altitude, there is no air necessary to create a mirage! Therefore, the constellations should look differently if you go above the atmosphere!

In what WAY would they look different? If you can not tell me precisely how, this is not a real prediction. All you say is "should"s.
Tell me exactly how it will look if your model is correct, to a degree of accuracy and precision. If it doesn't look like that, then your model is wrong. And do it in a way we can test it.

teo123 wrote: How the hell would you claim that something shaped like Orion is at the same time a sphere?!

Orion is obviously not a single object, it's a collection of many spherical stars in a cluster. If you would bother to explore stellar parallax, you would see why.
Why don't you bother to educate yourself on basic astronomy? You have made no effort here, and it's incredibly insulting.

teo123 wrote: And why couldn't their apparent movements be caused by their ACTUAL movements?

You fucking oath breaking lying piece of shit. I'm trying to be nice.

This is something you explicitly promised not to do. You promised not to make up additional unfalsifiable bullshit explanations for your ad hoc hypothesis.

You're now asserting that some stars are moving in unison and like clockwork to various degrees due to some magical force depending on the seasons, while others which are dimmer stay still, all to avoid admitting you're wrong. You just keep making this whole bullshit hypothesis more and more complicated, while the standard model is extremely simple and explains everything.

I said you were a liar and would do this. You proved me right.

teo123 wrote: Well, how is evolution any different? Except, of course, you see the Earth being flat every time you look out through the window.

People don't look around and see animals evolving, so they deny it.

The Earth is large. Demonstrably so. Of course it looks more or less flat near-by to the average moron. In fact, I can prove exactly how far the horizon should appear based on your height.
Evolution is a gradual process. Of course it seems that animals are not changing from species to species in front of our eyes. And we can prove it with genetics (among many other methods).

Of course a dedicated idiot can deny either based on pseudoscience, ad-hoc hypotheses, and blatant dishonesty.

Do you reject evolution too?

teo123 wrote: But it is!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki ... he+horizon

This is all complete nonsense.

"However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:"

No. This is not an issue of man's limitations. The horizon is very close. This isn't at all how optics work.

The diagram of the ships is ridiculous. Everything visually shrinks at the same rate. Things close to the horizon do not shrink faster than things farther away. Look at how the ships' hulls are illustrated to have shrunk more than the sails. This would create clearly demonstrable visual distortions even at close range.
This is all based on an ignorance of optics so profound it's hard to understand how these people were competent enough to put pen to paper. Or, they were just evil (which seems a more likely explanation at this point).

"We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes."

This is called an anecdote. And NO, that's not how you know anything in science. You actually do controlled experiments, which you can do at home.
These accounts are mistakes or lies.

teo123 wrote: And the same goes for camera zooming! When optically zoomed, the bottoms of the ships reappear! I haven't bothered to try this myself, but why shouldn't I trust the you-tubers showing that? How could they possibly fake that?!

Show me what videos you're talking about. If somebody has faked videos (which would be extremely easy), that reveals a level of dishonestly and malevolence that even I didn't expect here.

teo123 wrote: Also, I bet you haven't tested that statement yourself.

It's not necessary to test absurd statements like "99 buckets of water poured on somebody will make them wet, but 100 will not".
These are ridiculous claims.

This simply is not how optics works. It can be disproved easily with logic. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, and they have presented none.

You must be incredibly gullible to believe absurd things like this without testing them yourself.
I, on the other hand, have a basic understanding of optics. This is not necessary to test, and would be a waste of my time. I can tell you how to test it, though, if you still don't accept basic science which anybody with basic education can demonstrate with some simple tools.

teo123 wrote: How? There are always some small lumps and bumps on the surface to hide the celestial bodies, right?

No. That's not how perspective works. The sun would just get increasingly smaller (and the small lumps and bumps would ALSO become smaller along with the sun, so can not hide it) as it goes into the distance. It would never disappear.