frame

Best Fist Bump Content

  • Earth is a ball

    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    And this one too:


    So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.


    When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances. 


    When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.


     When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.


    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.


    Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.


    If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.


    The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.


    The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.


    You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.


    The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.


    So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.

    @Gooberry said:  When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.

    When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.

    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.

    Vanishing point, interesting. So why don't you go and explain this to NASA, because they are calculating a lot of stuff using trig, on stars as far as 13 billion light years away, to another star 12.8 billion light years away.. to convince us of the expanding universe, the Big Bang and many other bs

    If a ship on earth can reach it's vanishing point, or angular position of 0 degrees here on earth, then what is the angle from a NASA observer here on earth, and between two stars 12, and 13 billion light years away? (A new celestial wonder has stolen the title of most distant object ever seen in the universe, astronomers report. The new record holder is the galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away.)

    They aren't just calculating the expanding stars, but the very source of that light that has been traveling 13 billion years to reach us.

    With ships over the ocean, the light reaches us in microseconds, but stars and galaxies, .. yet they can trig it all out with "great accuracy" to where they can tell us what happened down to the millionths and billionths of a second after the Big Bang?


    You see what they can do with angles and trig? Even make us believe the Earth is a ball.
    I can’t even disentangle what you’re point even is in this nonsensical mess.

    I think you’re confusing perspective maths, with something else.

    qipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    @Evidence Just as a warning these guys don't wanna listen, they instead will mark your comment as a fallacy or rehash past mistakes.

    I’ll mark posts as fallacies that are fallacies.

    For example, I refuted your position, and you ignored the response 4 times; the fifth you posted a reply that made no sense, I pointed out in extensive detail why: and you’ve ignored that twice now.

    You then complained that I wasn’t interested in debate or discussion in the midst of it, and are still doing that.

    I get the feeling you’re disinterested in a discussion; and so are finding whatever  nonsense distraction you can, rather than to address any one of the number of posts you ignored.

    this makes your post a red herring.

    qipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    @SilverishGoldNova

    And this one too:


    So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.


    When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances. 


    When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.


     When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.


    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.


    Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.


    If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.


    The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.


    The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.


    You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.


    The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.


    So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.

    LibertineStatesqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    @SilverishGoldNova

    And this one too:


    So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.


    When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances. 


    When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.


     When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.


    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.


    Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.


    If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.


    The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.


    The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.


    You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.


    The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.


    So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.

    LibertineStatesqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    And now, for the extremely simple rebuttal to Gooberry's constantly posted hot air

    Image result for perspective vanishing point


    P L H P W B 
    l  e  o e  o  u  
    e a  w r  r   d  
    a r      s  k      
    s n     p  s
    e        e
              c
              t
              i
              v
              e

    Lets see how long it takes for this post to get marked as a fallacy for no good reason. 

    Unrelatedly, the stars are winning 2-0, 9:30 left in the 3rd Period. Go Stars!
    As you made repeated accusations that we were not arguing; I thought I’d point out that you ignore my response to this post:

    1.) You completely ignored, for the fifth time; the entire first 75% of my post, that outlines and details how and why you’ve refuted your own argument.

    2.) what, exactly, is this a rebuttal of? Because it is unrelated to my argument:

    You’re claiming that sunset and ships going over the horizon is due to “perspective”. which is not possible.

    Your rebuttal to this is an image in which neither ships nor the sun go over the horizon, and at no point shows the ground interfering with or getting in the way of objects above the ground. It doesn’t show anything you’ve claimed

    You offer no argument or explanation as to why it’s a rebuttal. Nor offer a description of what it is intended to show, or refute; nor did you even describe or referwnce anything I said.

    As I pointed out, parallel lines don’t meet; and as a result, the ground (or the sea) can’t appear in front of an object above the ground (or sea) if they’re flat: and this is actually mirrored - and shown  - by your perspective non-rebuttal image.

    So no: your argument makes no sense, it’s literally an irrelevant image asserted as if it shows something It doesn’t.

    As a result, your post constitutes both a non sequitur/red herring and an argument by assertion: so are genuinely fallacious.
    LibertineStatesqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    tttflat said:
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    1. You guys act like 8-year-olds because you guys are 8-year olds.
    2. Here is some evidence for the flat Earth:
    a. The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only fake space agencies like NASA and SpaceX show it with their CGI. 
    b. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space than truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is, in fact, is an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and the remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
    A.) There are multiple independent high altitude images of a curved horizon that aren’t NASA. 

    B.) water can be objectively observed to be curved, with basic experiments such as watching boats, planes, the sun falling over the horizon.

    Now, I’m not sure why you decided to launch into an ad-hominem attack unprompted; but quite honestly, if all you have is this type of non-evidence and name calling that typifies the other flat earthers here; the most appropriate thing you can contribute to this thread is silence.
    LibertineStatesqipwbdeoPogue
  • Earth is a ball

    The equater is the largest distance you can go on the Earth. This is testable. However, on a flat Earth, with the model you provided, shows the path along the Antarctic to be the longest. Another reason why the model does not hold up.
    PogueLibertineStates
  • Earth is a ball

    Ultimately, gravity proves a spherical Earth. Earth is more of a semi-ellipsoid. Some argue that planes have to constantly dip or cars could hover and wait for the destination to come over. However, when the Earth moves, it brings the atmosphere with it too. This is because of drag (drag is sort of like `friction' but with fluids instead of solids). Another point to make is that aircraft define their position relative to an air traffic control tower - which is rotating with the earth. So, for aircraft, hovering or equivalently keeping equal distance to the control tower means it is rotating with the earth. 
    qipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.

    For example, when someone points out that you ignored everything an opponent said, and you argue that he doesn’t understand what a red herring is: that is a deliberate attempt to distract:
    and thus a red herring. (As well as being an ad hominem)

    An additional example, is if you ignore everything an opponent says, and simply dismiss their position for a side issue (as you did), this is also an attempt to distract away from the key point.

    so yes: I understand what a red herring is. Do you?


    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    Erfisflat said:
    http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/5.html

    The shadow thing is inconclusive, for either side.
    It is very rare on Earth. None of the moon pictures you or @SilverishGoldNova provided show something that should not have happened. All pictures have parrellel shadows and show 1 light source even though there could have been more.
    Pogue

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch