[cel]

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.

And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.

It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think....

I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?

It seems you're really hungry of technical/scientific info, better do further research on the subject. There are lots of info on this in the internet, youtube, etc. I got one from one of the FEs, see and read this one: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/24/17-if-a-flat-earth-why-does-the-sun-go-down/#more-515  Actually, at certain distance, regardless of whether or not the earth is flat or globe (as tiny as we are compared to earth, at some far distance, it still appears to be flat than curve if earth is really globe and has curvature), our eyes has limitation because the extent of our sight is governed by the law on perspective or vanishing point principle. Anyway, read on something about this topic. Better have some imagination to appreciate what this law means... good luck...

[Love]

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

• Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
  
  
• The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s²), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s²) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s²). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s³ -  big deal! 

And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.

  Come off it! 

And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!

I suggest you try again!

It is the third derivative.  excuse me for the typo.   I would like to see you calculation concerning jerk magnitude.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.

And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.

It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think....

I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?

It seems you're really hungry of technical/scientific info, better do further research on the subject. There are lots of info on this in the internet, youtube, etc. I got one from one of the FEs, see and read this one: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/24/17-if-a-flat-earth-why-does-the-sun-go-down/#more-515  Actually, at certain distance, regardless of whether or not the earth is flat or globe (as tiny as we are compared to earth, at some far distance, it still appears to be flat than curve if earth is really globe and has curvature), our eyes has limitation because the extent of our sight is governed by the law on perspective or vanishing point principle. Anyway, read on something about this topic. Better have some imagination to appreciate what this law means... good luck...

Yes, I am aware of Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective", which is where the law of perspective referenced by that article originates.

We see an object because our eyes detect the light coming from the object. Our eyes detect 3 things about the light:

1. Intensity
2. Direction
3. Color (irrelevant for this discussion)

There are 2 ways for an object to "disappear":

1. When the intensity of the light is too low, we can no longer detect the object. Therefore, far away stuff tends to disappear.
2. When the angular diameter gets too small, we can no longer detect the dimensions of the object. The object will appear as a zero dimensional point. In the case of a star, we are able to detect some amount of light, but the angular diameter of the star is too small for us to detect the width of the star. We can't discern any details of the star. It just appears as a zero dimensional point.

How does this relate to perspective? As an object increases in distance, it's angular diameter decreases. This causes an object to appear to become smaller the farther away it gets. The entire object will appear  proportionally smaller. Any details that become smaller than what our eye can detect will be merged with the rest of the details in that area.

Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective" is based on this reasoning: if the angular diameter between an object and the horizon is smaller than what our eye can detect, then it will appear to merge with the horizon. This is perfectly reasonable on the surface. But he misapplies this reasoning.

Look at the picture of the Chicago buildings below the horizon: you can clearly see the tops of the buildings. Therefore, the angular diameter of the top portion of the building is much greater than the minimum discernible angular diameter of the camera. However, the portion of the building that is below the horizon is just as large as the portion above the horizon. The angular diameter of the bottom portion of the building should be plenty big enough to see. So why is the bottom portion gone? Rowbotham's reasoning does not apply here. "True perspective" does not apply here. The bottom portion of the building is plenty large enough to see. No amount of zooming in will cause the bottom portion to reappear. The only reasonable explanation is that the bottom portion of the building is hidden behind the water. This leaves us with two options: a massive wave is about to wipe out Chicago, or the water is curved along with the earth.

Stop assuming other people haven't thought this through.

[Love]

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

• Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
  
  
• The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s²), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s²) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s²). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s³ -  big deal! 

  Pure sophistry.

And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.

  Come off it! 

And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day."  Not just me.   Lots of people can and have made the same claim. That does seem to be very variable!

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

  More sophistry.   




So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!

I suggest you try again!

"That does seem to be very variable!"  ?   Did you just make a mistake with you sentence?  What does very variable mean?


"So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!"  No it doesn't.   So, you are wrong. 
I have no agenda except to entertain myself.  So, you are wrong.  Your comment is unfriendly, uncivil and uncalled for.

[Love]

Proponents of the Copernicum model aren't interested in understanding.   They are interested in power.  Me?  I am only interested in a good time and whether the Earth is flat or round makes no difference to me.  But, I think it could be flat and I have seen no compelling evidence from the Roundheads to suggest otherwise.  It isn't about what you know.  It is about who you trust.   And I wouldn't trust any of you round earth proselytes if my life depended on it.  Hell with the  NASA boondoggle!   Roundheads are a bunch of bullies who can't stand it when others don't follow the edicts of their religion.

When the multitudes laugh at you it only means you are blessed!

[Love]

I made the statement, " I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor."   I do not have a first hand account.  I didn't mean to be misleading.  I was just being boneheaded.   Mea Culpa!  But I am convinced because of local news coverage and you tube videos that one can see Chicago from Benton Harbor. Perhaps, I am a fool given to hysteria?  I don't care.  And why would anybody pay attention to a poor old gullible fool like myself?    And I have to be honest about what I feel and I just don't trust any institutional hierarchy.  I don't claim expertise.  I have no agenda except to entertain myself.

It's not that I believe the Earth is flat.  It is that I don't believe the current model.

[rabinoz]

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

• Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
  
  
• The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s²), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s²) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s²). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s³ -  big deal! 

And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.

  Come off it! 

And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!

<< removed pictures >>

So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!

I suggest you try again!

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law. I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... 

Yes, I know, but when we had

I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.

I replied showing how variable it is.

And I don't think that "a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope" will help one little bit.

Sure "the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply" but then
like it or not observations of this nature (for or against the globe) will always be bugged by that unfortunate fact of life, refraction near the horizon.

Much safer to steer clear till someone brings it up.

[cel]

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

• Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
  
  
• The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s²), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s²) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s²). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s³ -  big deal! 

And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.

  Come off it! 

And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!

<< removed pictures >>

So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!

I suggest you try again!

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law. I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... 

Yes, I know, but when we had

I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.

I replied showing how variable it is.

And I don't think that "a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope" will help one little bit.

Sure "the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply" but then
like it or not observations of this nature (for or against the globe) will always be bugged by that unfortunate fact of life, refraction near the horizon.

Much safer to steer clear till someone brings it up.

Well, there's no harm in trying. We cannot confirm any facts out there if you just slam any possible experiment that can prove something at the next level. That's how scientific method works. We can talk and talk and debate all the time defending each other's theory or belief, but this is useless and a waste of time if no valid experimental results are performed to prove one's proposition/theory. This is the only way i think can raise this matter to the next level. No one yet in this group is 100% sure or has a monopoly of the truth, the very reason why there seems to be an endless debate. Give a chance for people to make this experiment. Refrain from absolute conclusion. It does not help at this time. No one will believe in that. We cannot go on forever proving nothing by using just eye observation, without the aid of high powered telescope/camera, afterall, astronomy advances that way. Certainly, it is a fact that such gadget can significantly extend our sight capacity or the limits of perspective that governs unaided eye observation regardless of whether the earth is flat or a globe. Just be open-minded for better options as science works that way.

[cel]

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.

And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.

It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think....

I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?

It seems you're really hungry of technical/scientific info, better do further research on the subject. There are lots of info on this in the internet, youtube, etc. I got one from one of the FEs, see and read this one: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/24/17-if-a-flat-earth-why-does-the-sun-go-down/#more-515  Actually, at certain distance, regardless of whether or not the earth is flat or globe (as tiny as we are compared to earth, at some far distance, it still appears to be flat than curve if earth is really globe and has curvature), our eyes has limitation because the extent of our sight is governed by the law on perspective or vanishing point principle. Anyway, read on something about this topic. Better have some imagination to appreciate what this law means... good luck...

Yes, I am aware of Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective", which is where the law of perspective referenced by that article originates.

We see an object because our eyes detect the light coming from the object. Our eyes detect 3 things about the light:

1. Intensity
2. Direction
3. Color (irrelevant for this discussion)

There are 2 ways for an object to "disappear":

1. When the intensity of the light is too low, we can no longer detect the object. Therefore, far away stuff tends to disappear.
2. When the angular diameter gets too small, we can no longer detect the dimensions of the object. The object will appear as a zero dimensional point. In the case of a star, we are able to detect some amount of light, but the angular diameter of the star is too small for us to detect the width of the star. We can't discern any details of the star. It just appears as a zero dimensional point.

How does this relate to perspective? As an object increases in distance, it's angular diameter decreases. This causes an object to appear to become smaller the farther away it gets. The entire object will appear  proportionally smaller. Any details that become smaller than what our eye can detect will be merged with the rest of the details in that area.

Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective" is based on this reasoning: if the angular diameter between an object and the horizon is smaller than what our eye can detect, then it will appear to merge with the horizon. This is perfectly reasonable on the surface. But he misapplies this reasoning.

Look at the picture of the Chicago buildings below the horizon: you can clearly see the tops of the buildings. Therefore, the angular diameter of the top portion of the building is much greater than the minimum discernible angular diameter of the camera. However, the portion of the building that is below the horizon is just as large as the portion above the horizon. The angular diameter of the bottom portion of the building should be plenty big enough to see. So why is the bottom portion gone? Rowbotham's reasoning does not apply here. "True perspective" does not apply here. The bottom portion of the building is plenty large enough to see. No amount of zooming in will cause the bottom portion to reappear. The only reasonable explanation is that the bottom portion of the building is hidden behind the water. This leaves us with two options: a massive wave is about to wipe out Chicago, or the water is curved along with the earth.

Stop assuming other people haven't thought this through.

Opps, I simply provided you with what you asked. You made me/us believe that you don't know anything about perspective, where in fact you seemed to knew it already... ?? what a deceitful gesture! Anyway, people lie.. Ohh, you've thought this through already, and yet you let people here believe that you don't know anything about perspective... well, people tend to be deceitful just to push their agenda. hehehe, ... well, it seems that you know a lot about perspective. Thanks for your explanation. You have a point though, but not that conclusive yet, in an absolute sense, i mean. Let us put it this way. You concluded right away that there is curvature by seeing with only the "naked eye" or by "ordinary unaided observation" the upper portion of the bldgs. Wait, how about refraction effect? Remember, you're only using unaided eye observation which cannot be relied upon 100%. Ok, you can do it this way to erase all doubts esp. from the FEs. Observe, using a high powered camera or telescope recommended, the Chicago bldgs from a distance much farther, not just from Michigan, that according to curvature computation or formula the bldgs should have completely vanished already or out of sight already due to curvature, and show proof of this. This can also be done by the FEs. I challenge both FEs and GEs on this. So this can be proven once and for all. If the FE still sees the bldgs at such farther distance, well, FE is right, but if not, the GE is right, the earth is globe. So c'mmon people, do this experiment. Don't just make inadequately supported outright conclusions, that's not how scientific proving or proof works. Be a bit scientific... to end this seemingly endless debate, for now... Go and report to us the unedited and authentic verifiable result... photo,,,etc..

[TotesNotReptilian]

Opps, I simply provided you with what you asked. You made me/us believe that you don't know anything about perspective, where in fact you seemed to knew it already... ?? what a deceitful gesture! Anyway, people lie.. Ohh, you've thought this through already, and yet you let people here believe that you don't know anything about perspective... well, people tend to be deceitful just to push their agenda. hehehe, ...

I was not trying to be deceitful. "Law of perspective and vanishing point" is not a very technical term, so I was honestly curious about what you were referring to. There were several possibilities:

1. The normal understanding of perspective (stuff appears smaller as it gets farther away)
2. Artistic perspective drawing techniques (1 point perspective, 3 point perspective, etc)
3. Rowbotham's "true perspective"
4. Some other flat earther understanding of perspective, of which there are several

It is true that I suspected you were talking about Rowbotham's perspective, but I wanted to be sure. I'm not sure how asking you for clarification is "pushing my agenda".

well, it seems that you know a lot about perspective. Thanks for your explanation. You have a point though, but not that conclusive yet, in an absolute sense, i mean.

What about my explanation was not conclusive?

Let us put it this way. You concluded right away that there is curvature by seeing with only the "naked eye" or by "ordinary unaided observation" the upper portion of the bldgs. Wait, how about refraction effect? Remember, you're only using unaided eye observation which cannot be relied upon 100%.

No, I didn't. I was referring to the above picture of Chicago, which is obviously not the unaided eye. In fact, the picture was probably taken with a rather significant zoom. And what about the refraction effect? You can't just mumble the word "refraction" and assume that explains everything. Be specific.

Ok, you can do it this way to erase all doubts esp. from the FEs. Observe, using a high powered camera or telescope recommended, the Chicago bldgs from a distance much farther, not just from Michigan, that according to curvature computation or formula the bldgs should have completely vanished already or out of sight already due to curvature, and show proof of this. This can also be done by the FEs. I challenge both FEs and GEs on this. So this can be proven once and for all. If the FE still sees the bldgs at such farther distance, well, FE is right, but if not, the GE is right, the earth is globe. So c'mmon people, do this experiment.

No thanks. It is amusing to argue about this stuff on this website, but I am already quite confident that the earth is round. Why am I so confident? Because there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round, and absolutely zero evidence that it is flat. I am not going to waste a bunch of money proving something that has already been thoroughly proven.

Don't just make inadequately supported outright conclusions, that's not how scientific proving or proof works.

My conclusions are quite adequately supported, thank you very much.

Be a bit scientific... to end this seemingly endless debate, for now... Go and report to us the unedited and authentic verifiable result... photo,,,etc..

You mean a picture of Chicago with a high powered camera/telescope? The above picture is already taken with a pretty decent zoom, although I don't know exactly what the focal length is. Why isn't that picture good enough? You can clearly see the outlines of the buildings.

[Love]

It's not that I believe in flat earth.  I simply do not know.  I do not trust those in authority.  If I can be fooled by hoaxers on youtube then I can be fooled by NASA or some other scientific agency.  You  roundheads need to learn to live with the fact that none of you are the last word.  Long Live Flat Earth!  Death to Scientism.  I will say I am enjoying the conversations.  Whether one believes in flat earth or not will have no effect on the quality of their lives.

[rabinoz]

This is just a sort of an addendum to an earlier post.

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument,

I only put that in as a reply to love's claim "I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." I guess I was trying to point out more or less what you claim, sort of like "It ain't necessarily so!" And it's an observation that depends so much refraction that we get all sorts of results, as noted.

pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

Yes, both have perspective, but only the Flat Earth has a "Law of Perspective" that claims that the "vanishing point" is always on the visual horizon. Well, this is certainly vehemently claimed by Tom Bishop. Rather than fill this post up I tried to disprove that notion in Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

The the Flat Earth seems to use this to prove the the sun and moon reach their vanishing point at the horizon.

Perspective on the Globe is really just a drawing guide.

But, I would contend that the "vanishing point" depends entirely on the size (and brightness) of the object, and has no connection with the visible horizon.

I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... 

I think I commented on this bit earlier, but I don't think anyone is going to prove anything much other than that a telescope will never bring anything back.

[cel]

The the Flat Earth seems to use this to prove the the sun and moon reach their vanishing point at the horizon.

Perspective on the Globe is really just a drawing guide.

But, I would contend that the "vanishing point" depends entirely on the size (and brightness) of the object, and has no connection with the visible horizon.

I think I commented on this bit earlier, but I don't think anyone is going to prove anything much other than that a telescope will never bring anything back.

I think you misunderstood a bit about the law on perspective and vanishing point (LP/VP). You, being a GE, and those FEs like Tom, have all observed your respective "suns" and "moons" according to the LP/VP. NO ONE with eyes escapes this law. You are not human or simply just blind if you insist that you're not governed by this law. This is not just for drawing guide, as the drawing is just made right according to what the eyes have observed or seen. The LP/VP governs the sight of all persons' eyes, so everything seen especially at a distance moving towards or away from the observer, gets smaller from all sides until convergently vanishes to a point and disappears.

Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight. So for GEs, this LP/VP cannot just be ignored, for doing so, makes your observation erroneous. It could be that both GEs and FEs observed distant objects, bldgs, sun and moon relative to earth's huge surface WITHIN ONLY the LP/VP limitation that governs their eyes, all observers' eyes. To end this debate, once and for all, let someone with a high-powered telescope/camera prove whether the earth is really F or G. Better be ready GEs and FEs when the time comes to have this experiment done, probably by genuine truth seekers as they don't have any political agenda and have nothing to fear or hide... what they want is plain TRUTH...

[rabinoz]

The the Flat Earth seems to use this to prove the the sun and moon reach their vanishing point at the horizon.

Perspective on the Globe is really just a drawing guide.

But, I would contend that the "vanishing point" depends entirely on the size (and brightness) of the object, and has no connection with the visible horizon.

I think I commented on this bit earlier, but I don't think anyone is going to prove anything much other than that a telescope will never bring anything back.

I think you misunderstood a bit about the law on perspective and vanishing point (LP/VP). You, being a GE, and those FEs like Tom, have all observed your respective "suns" and "moons" according to the LP/VP. NO ONE with eyes escapes this law. You are not human or simply just blind if you insist that you're not governed by this law. This is not just for drawing guide, as the drawing is just made right according to what the eyes have observed or seen. The LP/VP governs the sight of all persons' eyes, so everything seen especially at a distance moving towards or away from the observer, gets smaller from all sides until convergently vanishes to a point and disappears.

Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight. So for GEs, this LP/VP cannot just be ignored, for doing so, makes your observation erroneous. It could be that both GEs and FEs observed distant objects, bldgs, sun and moon relative to earth's huge surface WITHIN ONLY the LP/VP limitation that governs their eyes, all observers' eyes. To end this debate, once and for all, let someone with a high-powered telescope/camera prove whether the earth is really F or G. Better be ready GEs and FEs when the time comes to have this experiment done, probably by genuine truth seekers as they don't have any political agenda and have nothing to fear or hide... what they want is plain TRUTH...

There is simply no way that any "Law of Perspective" can make something as large and bright as the sun (even the 32 mile FE sun) disappear at a distance of 10,000 miles or so.

Even more so is the fact that no "Law of Perspective" that can make the Flat Earth sun some 3,000 miles above appear to set behind the horizon, because it most certainly appears to rise from behind the horizon and set behind the horizon.

As in this video I "borrowed" from "the other site":

Please explain how this is actually possible... you can clearly see the sun make a semicircle over the water's horizon.

It addition to the sun does not get smaller as it moves away, it stays the same size (well, within say 0.004%) all the time from rising till setting and from anywhere on earth that you observe it. The only change is a small seasonal one - it is largest it January and smallest (but only by 3% or so) in July.

This "constancy of angular size" of the sun is readily observable and no massive telescopes can prove otherwise.

<< hopefully fixed video >>

[TotesNotReptilian]

Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight.

We all agree with the statement. The key issue is this: how far does the object have to move away before it appears to touch the horizon, and how big will it appear to be when it touches the horizon? We can find this answer easily using basic geometry. And the answers don't even come close to adding up in the flat earth model.

[cel]

I have a wildest idea and suggestion here just to come up with real time data supporting what's really the truth out there. Imagination and calculations are ok but real time observation from all over the world is much better. CGI is not welcome in this experiment. My suggestion is why don't everybody, GEs and FEs alike join together to get to or prove what's really an undeniable fact/truth about earth. Quite crazy, but we're all human who want to know the real truth regarding earth issues.

Anyway, I came across this video of FEs just having fun taking real time videos for their data gathering. We can say what's the point gathering those real time videos taken to prove something like the equinox? Well, this is a modern free world, let them go for it, who knows, some questions can be answered by their results. You know, nowadays, we just cannot have a monopoly of theoretical and mathematical claims without verifiable valid empirical data taken real time. If the the gathered data are inconsistent with what we believe, theorize or calculated as mathematical fact, then that's the opportune time that we ask the question "why"? and of course, we should strive to find the correct answer as the truth is just out there waiting to be discovered by people who are genuine truth seekers...

[rabinoz]

Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight.

We all agree with the statement. The key issue is this: how far does the object have to move away before it appears to touch the horizon, and how big will it appear to be when it touches the horizon? We can find this answer easily using basic geometry. And the answers don't even come close to adding up in the flat earth model.

Yes, we all agree with cel's basic statement.

Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight.

But the big point of contention is that the FE claims everything merges on the horizon.

But in the Globe model we assert quite strongly that objects merge at a distance determined by their separation, for example, there are stars a tremendous distance away that are only a few arc minutes apart, but can be easily resolved with the naked eye.

Alpha Capricorni - Algedi Algedi is an optical double star at the western tip of the constellation of Capricornus.

Algedi - enlarged Algedi is fairly easy to resolve with the naked eye. Its two components are separated by 6.3 arcminutes and are similar in moderate brightness.

From 20 Fun Naked Eye Doubles

And objects disappear from sight at a distance determined by their size and contrast with the background (caused mainly by brightness).

This distance bears no connection at all with the visual horizon.

If an object is large enough and/or bright enough, it can be visible far beyond the horizon.

[rumple4life]

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

I actually can't understand why Flat Earthers ....

1. Can't understand the difference between a bus and an Earth. The analogy is ridiculous. The better analogy would be, why don't germs fall off the surface of your skin. One would think, based on Flat Earth theory, that all one would need to do to ensure their hands are clean and free from bacteria is simply turn your hands flat out and facing down, give it a good shake. Poof, never get sick again.
2. Believe that for all of modern civilization, in every country, all over the world, even countries at war, are all in on the conspiracy that the world is flat but keep up the ruse that it is round.
3. Can't provide a real reason as to why this conspiracy is even necessary. What is the point of this ruse?
4. Have somehow convinced themselves that NASA, every scientist in the world, every government in the world, all pilots, Universities, professors, astrologists, engineers, physicists, geologists, and pretty much any profession that requires critical thinking, high intelligence, problem solving and investigative skills have not figured out this huge lie.
5. And that Flat Earthers have solved this puzzle, have provided no evidence or proof, but believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat.

One would think that out of all the flat Earthers out there, at least one, just one in the past 500 years, would have put together an expedition to provide proof of this. Expeditions have been made by man for many discoveries all over the world, but not one, not a single one, made an expedition to prove the Earth is flat, or even found out accidentally?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Succinctly nut shelled!

Welcome.

[Boots]

im thinking our reality is neither globe or flat..its something else..it wouldnt even be debatable if it was.

It's an irregular shape but most closely resembles a sphere.