i like how you just keep unabashedly admitting that your incorrect ideas about physical phenomena are propped up by conspiracy theories. "_________, which make sense because the craters of the moon are named after priests." "________, which makes sense because they can profit from it to fund their shadow organization."

its really comical that you admit you first have these conspiracies then form the data to match, some people would be too ashamed to admit that.



but then won't clarify when challenged. CLASSIC!

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 12 2017 12:24pm

What has doctrine religions got to do with anything? I'll let people burn me for saying this but doctrine religions are dumb.
doctrine religions are baseless. It then this "bases" of this inexistant thing that can't be seen or interacted to assume things in the physical universe which is also used as a "bases" for the existance of this thing which happens to exist in a place which does not exist here.
Don't get me wrong, i do myself believe that there is possible something transcending out there. But the line is drawn where you can say that this stuff is belief and this stuff is hard science, they don't mix.
I can believe in something like a transcending power, but then i can't assume that this thing has any physical effect on me, like how Mary is a virgin and got a baby? That's something related in the real world that you can see and measure, getting pregnant etc, are something you can measure and part of science, and isn't something belief has an effect on.

This post was edited by shamsunoor on Jan 12 2017 12:30pm

Geocentric belief aren't proved by this fact - that Astro science and religion are connected and filled with similar dogma that you find blasphemous to discuss, is all the proof i need of their connection.



To understand how the sun moves along perspective lines - you need to watch a video
If watching an 8 minute video is to hard for you to digest, I cant help you.



This post was edited by card_sultan on Jan 12 2017 12:33pm

I didn't ask for anything that you expect me to understand, I asked you for something that's correct regardless of who's looking at it.

The image I requested will do.

Here's how perspective works: railroad tracks are parallel lines but appear to converge along the z or depth of field axis, see how they appear to be going up?



The sun travels the same way, except its in a different plain, see how the lines appear to be going down?



The horizon raises to your eye level , works the exact same as the sky in the sky plain, it becomes level with your eye, - the sun appears to go down, according to perspective.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jan 12 2017 12:58pm

Fake

heavy stuff

SWERVE

I'm taking part in a debate/argument on an online forum. If someone is defending a statement which should be easy to illustrate with an image, it's not unreasonable for me to request such an image.

You should know that people get to know your habits after a while of talking to you. By now, it's way too likely that I'll spend 8 minutes watching a video, only to come to the realization that it does not contain anything even remotely close to what I asked for. Which is why I am not watching the video.

And at what point does perspective cause the sun to look like it's behind/below the horizon?

According to your logic, the "sun setting" would simple mean that the sun moves further and further away from us, until the point where its perspective line converges with the line that's level with Earth. This would mean that the sun becomes distant and invisible, it would not mean that the sun appears to drop below the horizon.