The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: zorbakim on September 28, 2018, 06:44:17 PM
-
Most people are mistaken about perspective. They know it only in straight lines.
But it's wrong. Side perspective is curved. It's the key to a dip of horizon, ships disappear, etc.,
We can feel the depth of the world due to the curved side perspective.
Here's the evidence.
https://youtu.be/m3AjYffawAs
https://youtu.be/jFokuTd03IY
-
Most people are mistaken about perspective.
Yes, another one, proofing in elaborate way in two videos, that he did not understand perspective. No wonder that youtube demotes flat earth videos.
You cannot combine measurements from real world and from the perspective view. If you take the height of the objects from the perspective, you also have to take the horizontal spacing of the objects from perspective view.
Given an equal spaced row of objects, the height of more distant objects appears to decrease in perspective view, but in the same ratio the spaces between these objects appear smaller and smaller in the distance in perspective view.
So in the chart/graph plotted in the video the objects on the x-axis are not equally spaced - that's the real world measurement - the spacing has to decrease with the distance, which compensates for the decreasing height, which gives as result straight lines again, no curves!
-
Most people are mistaken about perspective.
Yes, another one, proofing in elaborate way in two videos, that he did not understand perspective. No wonder that youtube demotes flat earth videos.
You cannot combine measurements from real world and from the perspective view. If you take the height of the objects from the perspective, you also have to take the horizontal spacing of the objects from perspective view.
Given an equal spaced row of objects, the height of more distant objects appears to decrease in perspective view, but in the same ratio the spaces between these objects appear smaller and smaller in the distance in perspective view.
So in the chart/graph plotted in the video the objects on the x-axis are not equally spaced - that's the real world measurement - the spacing has to decrease with the distance, which compensates for the decreasing height, which gives as result straight lines again, no curves!
The examples use railroad tracks, tiles, and telephone poles. What makes you think that the wooden planks on railroads in a railroad perspective scene or the tiles on the side of a wall in a perspective scene are not evenly spaced?
-
Most people are mistaken about perspective.
Yes, another one, proofing in elaborate way in two videos, that he did not understand perspective. No wonder that youtube demotes flat earth videos.
You cannot combine measurements from real world and from the perspective view. If you take the height of the objects from the perspective, you also have to take the horizontal spacing of the objects from perspective view.
Given an equal spaced row of objects, the height of more distant objects appears to decrease in perspective view, but in the same ratio the spaces between these objects appear smaller and smaller in the distance in perspective view.
So in the chart/graph plotted in the video the objects on the x-axis are not equally spaced - that's the real world measurement - the spacing has to decrease with the distance, which compensates for the decreasing height, which gives as result straight lines again, no curves!
The examples use railroad tracks, tiles, and telephone poles. What makes you think that the wooden planks on railroads in a railroad perspective scene or the tiles on the side of a wall in a perspective scene are not evenly spaced?
... and yet another one, who is "mistaken about perspective".
Do not mix up real world with perspective view!
e.g.: Take a line of equally spaced telephone poles, make a photo - that's the perspective view. Now measure the distances between the telephone poles in the image, on the photo: Decreasing for those which are farther away from the observer in real world.
-
Most people are mistaken about perspective.
Yes, another one, proofing in elaborate way in two videos, that he did not understand perspective. No wonder that youtube demotes flat earth videos.
You cannot combine measurements from real world and from the perspective view. If you take the height of the objects from the perspective, you also have to take the horizontal spacing of the objects from perspective view.
Given an equal spaced row of objects, the height of more distant objects appears to decrease in perspective view, but in the same ratio the spaces between these objects appear smaller and smaller in the distance in perspective view.
So in the chart/graph plotted in the video the objects on the x-axis are not equally spaced - that's the real world measurement - the spacing has to decrease with the distance, which compensates for the decreasing height, which gives as result straight lines again, no curves!
The examples use railroad tracks, tiles, and telephone poles. What makes you think that the wooden planks on railroads in a railroad perspective scene or the tiles on the side of a wall in a perspective scene are not evenly spaced?
... and yet another one, who is "mistaken about perspective".
Do not mix up real world with perspective view!
e.g.: Take a line of equally spaced telephone poles, make a photo - that's the perspective view. Now measure the distances between the telephone poles in the image, on the photo: Decreasing for those which are farther away from the observer in real world.
The railroad planks and the tiles on the wall are clearly equally spaced. Stop trolling.
-
Most people are mistaken about perspective.
Yes, another one, proofing in elaborate way in two videos, that he did not understand perspective. No wonder that youtube demotes flat earth videos.
You cannot combine measurements from real world and from the perspective view. If you take the height of the objects from the perspective, you also have to take the horizontal spacing of the objects from perspective view.
Given an equal spaced row of objects, the height of more distant objects appears to decrease in perspective view, but in the same ratio the spaces between these objects appear smaller and smaller in the distance in perspective view.
So in the chart/graph plotted in the video the objects on the x-axis are not equally spaced - that's the real world measurement - the spacing has to decrease with the distance, which compensates for the decreasing height, which gives as result straight lines again, no curves!
The examples use railroad tracks, tiles, and telephone poles. What makes you think that the wooden planks on railroads in a railroad perspective scene or the tiles on the side of a wall in a perspective scene are not evenly spaced?
... and yet another one, who is "mistaken about perspective".
Do not mix up real world with perspective view!
e.g.: Take a line of equally spaced telephone poles, make a photo - that's the perspective view. Now measure the distances between the telephone poles in the image, on the photo: Decreasing for those which are farther away from the observer in real world.
The railroad planks and the tiles on the wall are clearly equally spaced. Stop trolling.
Tom, you are right. I don't know why people won't accept the side perspective as a curve.
-
I did a small experiment, or better I tried to do.
Take a row of regular cubes and align them in a row, which gives a row of equally spaced objects, here with no space in between, the cubes are already the "spacers".
Now I followed that advice form the video and tried to construct a "side perspective". The outcome was, that the cubes no more appeared as cubes (side view should be regular squares).
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrYsPrBk/sideperspective.png)
Obviously the cubes experience a distortion
-
Somewhere in the archives is a topic by the poster (moved on, apparently) named ICanScienceThat where he showed how perceived size diminished in inverse proportion to increasing range. He even did a video about it, which I'll add after I find it. He made a similar point to the author of the video above (which Tom, if I recall, contested when it was ICanScienceThat making it), but came to markedly different conclusion in terms of application to understanding the world around us.
Found it: (gives me a shout out 8) )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9co3x6Fdbc
-
What 평지인 calls "side perspective," ICanScienceThat calls an orthogonal view.
I understand how a plot of angular height vs distance creates a curved, but I don't see how that translates to actual curving light.
Awhile ago, I posted this regarding the setting sun (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10100.msg158222#msg158222) and the explanation of perspective as a cause of the effect in which I touch on the same point. The part that I don't agree with (or at least am not grasping) is how that translates to a bend in light. Light isn't bending to cause that convergence illusion. It's the subtending of a smaller and smaller angular dimension on the receptor.
------
Edit:
I'm going to post this here rather than bump the thread. I'll use these in follow-up explanation should the OP return and the discussion continues.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3cZ8Qh4fvIrwsY3Wi6/giphy.gif)
-
Somewhere in the archives is a topic by the poster (moved on, apparently) named ICanScienceThat where he showed how perceived size diminished in inverse proportion to increasing range. He even did a video about it, which I'll add after I find it. He made a similar point to the author of the video above (which Tom, if I recall, contested when it was ICanScienceThat making it), but came to markedly different conclusion in terms of application to understanding the world around us.
Found it: (gives me a shout out 8) )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9co3x6Fdbc
That's amazing. There was someone who thought the same thing as me.
But I'll explain FE with that.
-
Those videos in the opening post are yours?
-
Those videos in the opening post are yours?
No.
So far, my video is only three.
https://youtu.be/m3AjYffawAs
https://youtu.be/jFokuTd03IY
https://youtu.be/TSHiHOGJ6cM
I'm going to make more.
-
Hello zorbakim!
I still don't get it. You combine heights derived from the perspective view with distances taken from the real world and produce a curve. This curve cannot be part of the real world, as it includes heights from perspective and it cannot be part of the perspective view, as distances are derived from real world.
You say the curve is not part of the "front perspective". There straight lines from real world appear as straight lines. But a flat surface (e.g. the sea) appears to rise with that curve. If I assume a long wall or similar left or right from the observer, but still in his viewing field, why do I not see a curve at the base of the wall, where it connects to the ground?
-
Hello zorbakim!
I still don't get it. You combine heights derived from the perspective view with distances taken from the real world and produce a curve. This curve cannot be part of the real world, as it includes heights from perspective and it cannot be part of the perspective view, as distances are derived from real world.
You say the curve is not part of the "front perspective". There straight lines from real world appear as straight lines. But a flat surface (e.g. the sea) appears to rise with that curve. If I assume a long wall or similar left or right from the observer, but still in his viewing field, why do I not see a curve at the base of the wall, where it connects to the ground?
The physical world is considered to be three dimensions.
But what our eyes see is a two-dimensional visual image.
What I have tried is how the three-dimensional world looks in the two-dimensional visual image.
-
I think I'm having the same difficulty understanding.
"Side Perspective" as you're calling it isn't a trace of actual light path. It's a plot of apparent diminishing heights (y-axis) vs non-diminishing scale between objects (x-axis). The result is the curve that approaches but never reaches 0. Like this:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/351h7xi.jpg)
But if you take the very same situation, and plot apparent diminishing heights vs apparent diminishing distance between objects, the curve straightens...
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2gvoleb.jpg)
...but it still never reaches 0 because the interval distance keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Both of these were roughly plotted by pixel counting of height and interval of bars in this image where all of the bars were modeled to be the same height and the same distance apart.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/156b9s4.jpg)
It was also modeled on a flat plane, and as you can see, there is no appearance of curve even though the "side perspective" plots as a curve given equal intervals.
Compare that to this image which kept all the parameters the same except it was modeled with the bars on a convex surface:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/214uqh5.jpg)
It looks curved because it is curved, and not because perspective is making it looked curved. The effect of perspective is the same for both: objects appear smaller with increasing distance, and the interval distance itself between objects gets smaller. But the effect of the surface appearing curved isn't produced by perspective. The "curve" you find in so-called "side perspective" doesn't cause the topology to appear convex.
----
For a 3-D perception of a convex or downward curving surface, either the surface has to actually be curving down or light must bend upward as if passing through a series of lenses. Perspective can exaggerate the effect, but it doesn't produce it.
-
I think I'm having the same difficulty understanding.
"Side Perspective" as you're calling it isn't a trace of actual light path. It's a plot of apparent diminishing heights (y-axis) vs non-diminishing scale between objects (x-axis). The result is the curve that approaches but never reaches 0. Like this:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/351h7xi.jpg)
But if you take the very same situation, and plot apparent diminishing heights vs apparent diminishing distance between objects, the curve straightens...
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2gvoleb.jpg)
...but it still never reaches 0 because the interval distance keeps getting smaller and smaller.
That's a really good plot!
That is exactly the point, I think, that is quite difficult to realize in perspective. The vanishing point in perspective view represents infinity from real world. In perspective view distances near the vanishing point appear smaller and smaller, so small that even vast stretches from real world are only tiny distances in perspective view. So perspective lines will never reach and most notably never "cross" the vanishing point.
-
I think, I now found the issue in "Side perspective". I took me quite a time, to unknot my brain, which was twisted by this misleading, oxymoron/term "Side perspective".
Preface:
Perspective is a one-way/non-reversible, non-iterative (think about this!) function, geometric construction, a projection.
With this and various threads around here, my personal conclusion is, if you cannot show/proof your point/issue in real world, perspective won't help you neither!
My "enlightenment" came with the 3rd video from zorbakim, when he applied his "Side perspective" on this "twisted tower" video.
He started to calculate multiple distances and heights applying his "Curve" from his theory and than in another step showed us views for this mangled distances and heights.
So what's this? In easy words you could say, he is applying perspective twice. Or better 1.5 times, as he only mangles heights in the first step.
That's another hint: Perspective affects the appearance of all 3 dimensions, not only the height of objects. So distant objects not only appear less high, they also should appear less wide, in both of the remaining 2 directions: width and distance.
In other words the "process" goes like this:
Plot heights of objects in "Side perspective": That's apparent, perspective hight against real world distances.
Now apply those heights to the real world objects. I'm still searching for a term describing this outcome: An intermediate view or an "alternate reality"?
Construct the final view by applying "classic" perspective...
-
But if you take the very same situation, and plot apparent diminishing heights vs apparent diminishing distance between objects, the curve straightens...
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2gvoleb.jpg)
...but it still never reaches 0 because the interval distance keeps getting smaller and smaller.
apparent diminishing distance between objects?
We can measure only x-y in the picture.
x: apparent diminishing width
y: apparent diminishing heights
it's a "front perspective"
It's a straight line, of course.
-
apparent diminishing distance between objects?
We can measure only x-y in the picture.
x: apparent diminishing width
y: apparent diminishing heights
it's a "front perspective"
It's a straight line, of course.
You can measure x-y, but you can measure different parameters in those axes.
Edit: Whoops. Forgot the image. Here it is:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/vymoat.jpg)
The blue line measures apparent height of a bar.
The green line measures apparent width of a bar.
The orange lines measure apparent interval distance between the bars, which you can measure in either the x-axis, y-axis, or both (hypotenuse; and it doesn't have to be that particular reference point on each bar, but it must be consistent.)
The "side-perspective" that produces a slope is a plot of these perceived dimensions. It isn't a real world side view showing a light path.
My issue is that plotting apparent decreasing heights vs. actual/constant interval distances isn't showing curving light. It's merely showing a relationship of perceived height to actual distance. You can do the same thing with perceive distances, which are also influenced by perspective. As things get smaller in the distance, they also appear to get squeezed together. When you plot it like that, the curve becomes straight.
My point is that perspective works like this whether on a flat surface topography or a convex surface. Perspective doesn't cause the appearance of curve when the surface is actually straight. This should be apparent by the two renderings of perspective above: one on a flat surface and one on a curved surface. The "side perspective" of the flat surface model will also plot as a curve if you plot apparent changing height against a constant interval distance. But the bars don't look like they are standing on the surface that curves away even through their 'side-perspective" plot is curved.
I can appreciate what your are trying to say, but I'm saying you're conflating (cross mixing) parameters without consistency and drawing an incorrect conclusion. Perspective can't cause the appearance of curve in the perception of depth.
-
The vanishing point in perspective view represents infinity from real world. In perspective view distances near the vanishing point appear smaller and smaller, so small that even vast stretches from real world are only tiny distances in perspective view. So perspective lines will never reach and most notably never "cross" the vanishing point.
In real life of course there is no "vanishing point". Sure there's a distance at which we can no longer perceive things but if there is clear line of sight between you and the object you could bring the object back into view with optical zoom. In the flat earth model outlined in the Wiki the sun would never be far enough away that you wouldn't be able to perceive it, you'd see it day and night. The potential FE solutions to that are
1) Some made up version of perspective, that is what Rowbotham outlined but doesn't reflect reality. At altitude you'd always have clear line of sight to the sun and be able to see it at all times.
2) The sun being a literal spotlight which only shines over a certain area - there is no suggestion what would cause that effect though and the shape of the spotlight would have to change over the course of the year to explain different patterns of sunlight as the seasons change
3) EA, so light bends upwards. This is probably the best solution and the closest to a solution which would actually work but there's no evidence for EA actually existing and if night is caused by light bending upwards and over our heads then surely things in the sky would be illuminated at night, why wouldn't we get noctilucent clouds all night?
-
The "side-perspective" that produces a slope is a plot of these perceived dimensions. It isn't a real world side view showing a light path.
My issue is that plotting apparent decreasing heights vs. actual/constant interval distances isn't showing curving light. It's merely showing a relationship of perceived height to actual distance. You can do the same thing with perceive distances, which are also influenced by perspective. As things get smaller in the distance, they also appear to get squeezed together. When you plot it like that, the curve becomes straight.
My point is that perspective works like this whether on a flat surface topography or a convex surface. Perspective doesn't cause the appearance of curve when the surface is actually straight. This should be apparent by the two renderings of perspective above: one on a flat surface and one on a curved surface. The "side perspective" of the flat surface model will also plot as a curve if you plot apparent changing height against a constant interval distance. But the bars don't look like they are standing on the surface that curves away even through their 'side-perspective" plot is curved.
I can appreciate what your are trying to say, but I'm saying you're conflating (cross mixing) parameters without consistency and drawing an incorrect conclusion. Perspective can't cause the appearance of curve in the perception of depth.
We seem to have misunderstood each other.
I measured the apparent height in the picture.(y-axis)
but didn't measure the interval distance in the picture(z-axis).
I measure the interval distance in the real world.
I combined the two.
It lets us know how the depth of reality is shown in pictures.
-
At sea the earth appears to be perfectly flat. However you see the spherical nature of things just every so often. A lot depends on the weather. After spending half my life (literally) at sea for the last 20 years, the most spectacular visual representation of the spherical earth is the view of Mt Fuji in Japan coming out of the open ocean. Mt. Fuji is about 12000 feet tall. The top is over two miles above sea level. That means you can see Mt. Fuji 100 miles out at sea. At that distance the nearest shoreline is about 40 miles away. The mountain just appears to grow out of the sea with no other land visible. Now it takes an unusually clear day for you to see that but sometimes we would get lucky in the winter if it was especially cold. After a couple of weeks at sea with no other view except the ocean a nice sight like that can really make your day.
-
What I have tried is how the three-dimensional world looks in the two-dimensional visual image.
Right, but what is the shape of the 3-D world? My take is that if the tiles are squares, i.e. each of the four internal angles is 90d, and if we put all the tiles together, this will form a much larger square, with each of the four internal angles also equal to 90d.
Is this your point? But then which part of the large square is curved?
-
We seem to have misunderstood each other.
I measured the apparent height in the picture.(y-axis)
but didn't measure the interval distance in the picture(z-axis).
I measure the interval distance in the real world.
I combined the two.
It lets us know how the depth of reality is shown in pictures.
It's a plot, then. A graph. It's not a depiction of the path of light "in reality."
The plot of apparent height vs. actual interval distance is a curve.
The plot of apparent height vs. apparent interval distance is a slope.
Neither supports your contention that perspective produces the visual effect of a convex surface "in reality." For that, either the surface is really convex or light bends upward to produce the appearance of a convex surface. Perspective doesn't do that. You've created plot of a curve (apparent vs. reality) but that's not showing bending light in reality.
-
What I have tried is how the three-dimensional world looks in the two-dimensional visual image.
Right, but what is the shape of the 3-D world? My take is that if the tiles are squares, i.e. each of the four internal angles is 90d, and if we put all the tiles together, this will form a much larger square, with each of the four internal angles also equal to 90d.
Is this your point? But then which part of the large square is curved?
You are confusing physical with visual.
-
It's a plot, then. A graph. It's not a depiction of the path of light "in reality."
The plot of apparent height vs. actual interval distance is a curve.
The plot of apparent height vs. apparent interval distance is a slope.
Neither supports your contention that perspective produces the visual effect of a convex surface "in reality." For that, either the surface is really convex or light bends upward to produce the appearance of a convex surface. Perspective doesn't do that. You've created plot of a curve (apparent vs. reality) but that's not showing bending light in reality.
You have a serious misunderstanding.
I never said that the path of light is curved.
What many people have misunderstood is that geometrical optics is the nature of light.
But it's not true.
geometrical optics is not the nature of light.
It is only a mathematical interpretation and a tool.
-
I've tried to explain why, but because we are not communicating, maybe pictures will help.
This has all of the perspective features you describe but the surface is flat:
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/156b9s4.jpg)
Where is the visual curve?
Here is visual curve:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/214uqh5.jpg)
In this second image, perspective is applied just as in the first, but now the surface is convex.
Perspective doesn't cause that appearance of convexity. If the surface isn't convex, then light must bend to produce that visual effect. But straight line light and perspective don't produce the visual effect you say it does. The reasoning isn't sound and it isn't born out in either reality or when modeled.