I promised to, and here it is:
The Globularists claim that a great proof of the Earth's sphericity is that a ship moving away from you at sea will go over the horizon, seeming to vanish from the bottom up as the lower parts, then higher parts pass behind the hill of water. Or vice-versa as the ship approaches you. If you are standing at the water's edge, the visible horizon is about 3 miles away.
"Nonsense!" cry the Planists. It's merely an optical illusion cause by perspective and distance. Imagine yourself standing on a railway looking at the tracks go off into the distance. (watch out for trains!) The tracks appear to merge in the distance. Do they really merge? Of course not, or the trains would have a very hard time running on them. It's an illusion of perspective.
The ship in the distance is the same illusion. As it recedes, it appears to merge with the horizon. The bottom appears to merge first, of course, because it's closest to the horizon.
"Ah but..." say the Globularists, "If one goes up a hill above the ocean, the ship will be visible again, meaning that you are seeing it over the curve of the Earth. The Planists don't dispute that the ship is now more visible, but dispute the reason why it is. They claim that "Of course the ship is more visible from a higher point, you now have a better vantage point." Perspective. That would be true of anything. It is also claimed by the Planists that looking at the ship thru a telescope will bring it back "up". This is true to some extent, I've done that and have video to show it.
One of the main proofs and experiments done by the Planist group to prove the flatness of the world - is the observation of objects such as ships and lighthouses much farther out to see than would be possible over a curved earth. Many of the Bedford level experiments were observations of people and craft much farther along the canal than should have been possible on a curved Earth of a 3,960 mile radius.
Attachments
If I understand what you are saying, it's not so easy. I've done basically that. It's bloody hard to tell.
I have to correct what I wrote earlier:
The way the greeks figured out that the earth is a sphere and calculated its circumference was by measuring the different angles of a fixed star above the horizon from Greece and Egypt. The angle can only be different if the Earth surface is curved.
Also if you travel north or south far enough you will be able to see stars near the horizon which are invisible from home. Again only possible if the Earth's surface is curved.
With that information they used simple triangulation to calculate Earths circumference.
They got to within 5-15% of the actual size but they did not use decimal points so there is an inbuilt error and today nobody really knows exactly how long a 'stade' was.
The way the greeks figured out that the earth is a sphere and calculated its circumference was by measuring the different angles of a fixed star above the horizon from Greece and Egypt. The angle can only be different if the Earth surface is curved.
Also if you travel north or south far enough you will be able to see stars near the horizon which are invisible from home. Again only possible if the Earth's surface is curved.
With that information they used simple triangulation to calculate Earths circumference.
They got to within 5-15% of the actual size but they did not use decimal points so there is an inbuilt error and today nobody really knows exactly how long a 'stade' was.
There are thorough rebuttals of that, too in the Flat World, but I'd have to look them up.
Sorry, I thought I made it clear: A is the singer 'live" in the video, B is the recording of her being played within the video. At one point the "recorded" Anne sings a phrase, and then the "live" Anne repeats the phrase. The quality of replay of the video sound on your system is no longer part of the equation, merely that it be good enough that the qualities of A and B can be distinguished.
if you visually recognize that it is the same singer in both cases, then your brain will compensate, even if there is a difference in quality between the recordings, most likely you will hear that as a performance by the same singer...
Indeed, what can subjectivists offer except a notion that something isn't right and express it in airy-fairy words that mean nothing to any but them? They decry the evidence of measurements because measurements are meaningless unless they correlate to their beliefs.
Not only can they not measure, most do not understand what the measurements are, how they are used and why they may have 'some' significance. To harp on about something only they think they can define and then only in words that no one else can understand is, essentially and in reality, meaningless. In order to determine change, they must be a measurement of something; otherwise, how do you know that a change has occurred? According to you, you will hear it but you have also said that you haven't heard a difference between two tracks that are different. So, even though you say you trust your sense of hearing implicitly, you admit to it being deceived. As Mark Knoepler once sang, "Two man say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong."
All indications? Please list them and explain why they are unsuitable?
Here's how it goes in the Stereophile forum,
Subjective: "Trust your ears and not measurements"
Objective: "Care to take a single or double blind test to confirm your opinion?"
Subjective: "Double blind tests are flawed!"
Objective: "So you don't really trust your ears do you?"
Subjective: " I know what I heard!"
Objective: "Even John Atkinson admits there is such a thing as sighted bias"
Subjective: "Why you #@&^!"
So yes peeking isn't a good way to make a "sound" (pun intended) decision.
As to your TV transmission analogy, what has a visual medium have to do with a discussion about audio? Of course peeking is mandatory with a visual medium but why isn't blind testing mandatory for an audio medium? Don't trust your ears?
The Egyptians calculated the circumference of the Earth, fairly accurately, about 2,500 years ago using a plum bob, a stick, a shovel and a mirror.
Yes, I wouldn't deny that subjectivists frequently shoot themselves in the foot, by the language used and attitude shown. We do, after all, have two corners in this 'tussle'.
Personally, I hear "something isn't right" too, but from long experience and effort can translate that into something meaningful, at least to me. That is, that what I hearing is an indicator, an audible "measurement" of the 'accuracy' of the system in the true sense of that word.
Yes, I'm being deceived, but I 'know' that I'm being deceived, and I know why. If there are two versions of a track, and they're both 'wrong', equally, or nearly so, poor in SQ, then it certainly makes it harder. It's much easier to distinguish a 'better' from a 'worse' - in fact, I've been asked by a friend to comment several times on two versions of sound, and I find it gives me a headache - to me they're both 'wrong' and that factor is too disturbing for me to be genuinely interested in separating them ...
A couple of the key 'problems', as I've indicated many times are:
* No measurements are done when interference is deliberately introduced - say, injecting high frequency noise via the power cord
* No measurements are done of low level behaviour when power supplies are heavily stressed. A simple example is say of a stereo amp where the distortion behaviour of one channel on low level signals could be monitored while the other channel was being driven at close to maximum power by a high frequency signal
Dug a vertical hole, mounted a vertical stick a long distance away and when their was no shadow at the bottom of the hole, they measured the length of the shadow of the stick.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.