[Rama Set]

But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.

How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?

What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.

I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.

Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.

When I imagine what you are talking about I have to imagine light that does not travel in a straight line. Since light travels in a straight line I can only conclude that your assertion is incorrect.

[Tom Bishop]

But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.

How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?

What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.

I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.

Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.

When I imagine what you are talking about I have to imagine light that does not travel in a straight line. Since light travels in a straight line I can only conclude that your assertion is incorrect.

The light leaves the elephant and can't hit your eye because a dime is in the way. What is difficult to understand about that?

[markjo]

But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.

How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?

What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.

I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.

Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.

When I imagine what you are talking about I have to imagine light that does not travel in a straight line. Since light travels in a straight line I can only conclude that your assertion is incorrect.

The light leaves the elephant and can't hit your eye because a dime is in the way. What is difficult to understand about that?

The part where the dime is supposed to be on the ground blocking your view of the elephant rather than in your hand blocking your view of the elephant.  Rather than having us imagine it, why don't you draw a scale diagram like he asked you to earlier?

[Tom Bishop]

The part where the dime is supposed to be on the ground blocking your view of the elephant rather than in your hand blocking your view of the elephant.  Rather than having us imagine it, why don't you draw a scale diagram like he asked you to earlier?

I drew a diagram. Perspective put the dime at eye level. No evidence was presented by the opposition that the horizon is not at eye level.

[Rama Set]

But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.

How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?

What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.

I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.

Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.

When I imagine what you are talking about I have to imagine light that does not travel in a straight line. Since light travels in a straight line I can only conclude that your assertion is incorrect.

The light leaves the elephant and can't hit your eye because a dime is in the way. What is difficult to understand about that?

The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.

[markjo]

The part where the dime is supposed to be on the ground blocking your view of the elephant rather than in your hand blocking your view of the elephant.  Rather than having us imagine it, why don't you draw a scale diagram like he asked you to earlier?

I drew a diagram. Perspective put the dime at eye level. No evidence was presented by the opposition that the horizon is not at eye level.

Incorrect.

Well, on the one hand, the perspective vanishing point is always on the horizon which is always very far away.  On the other hand, small things can become too small to see (vanish) long before they reach the horizon.  The dime could reach its vanishing point at a few hundred feet while the vanishing point on the horizon is several miles away.

[Tom Bishop]

The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.

The dime might only block a small portion of a toe if the dime is right up against the elephant. But what if the elephant is 1000 feet behind the dime?

The part where the dime is supposed to be on the ground blocking your view of the elephant rather than in your hand blocking your view of the elephant.  Rather than having us imagine it, why don't you draw a scale diagram like he asked you to earlier?

I drew a diagram. Perspective put the dime at eye level. No evidence was presented by the opposition that the horizon is not at eye level.

Incorrect.

Well, on the one hand, the perspective vanishing point is always on the horizon which is always very far away.  On the other hand, small things can become too small to see (vanish) long before they reach the horizon.  The dime could reach its vanishing point at a few hundred feet while the vanishing point on the horizon is several miles away.

Actually the Vanishing Point is a perspective term which is the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point

In graphical perspective, a vanishing point is a point in the picture plane that is the intersection of the projections (or drawings) of a set of parallel lines in space on to the picture plane. When the set of parallels is perpendicular to the picture plane, the construction is known as one-point perspective and their vanishing point corresponds to the oculus or eye point from which the image should be viewed for correct perspective geometry.

The way you are using it, as a definition of where things "vanish," has nothing to do with traditional perspective theory.

[Rama Set]

The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.

The dime might only block a small portion of a toe if the dime is right up against the elephant. But what if the elephant is 1000 feet behind the dime?

No, it still would not work.  Try and make a scale diagram of the light rays and see if you can get it to work.  Post it here when you are done.  The light would all have to curve down towards the dime.

[Tom Bishop]

The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.

The dime might only block a small portion of a toe if the dime is right up against the elephant. But what if the elephant is 1000 feet behind the dime?

No, it still would not work.  Try and make a scale diagram of the light rays and see if you can get it to work.  Post it here when you are done.  The light would all have to curve down towards the dime.

What do you mean "to scale"? Perspective is not "to scale." Distant elephants are tiny, and are easily obscured by dimes.



Everything gets compressed and shrunken with distance to perspective. If the elephant is illuminating one elephant worth of light in its immediate vicinity, at 1000 feet away where the elephant is smaller than a dime, and those light rays are likewise shrunken. The area the elephant is illuminating is now smaller than a dime.

[markjo]

Actually the Vanishing Point is a perspective term which is the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge.

Then why do you refer to objects too small to see, yet are nowhere near the horizon, as having reached their vanishing point?  Perhaps you should choose one definition for vanishing point and stick with it.  It would make discussions like this a whole lot easier.  For objects too small to see, perhaps saying that they have reached their limit of angular resolution would be more appropriate.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually the Vanishing Point is a perspective term which is the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge.

Then why do you refer to objects too small to see, yet are nowhere near the horizon, as having reached their vanishing point?  Perhaps you should choose one definition for vanishing point and stick with it.  It would make discussions like this a whole lot easier.  For objects too small to see, perhaps saying that they have reached their limit of angular resolution would be more appropriate.

I don't believe I have ever used that term in that way, as a place where things "vanish". Please read over my original post where I brought it up.

Perspective brings the ground up to the level of your eye. Things on the vanishing point horizon are at eye level. This is fundamental to perspective.

The earth is not perfectly flat, and so any disturbances on the surface will become apparent where the land rises to meet the eye, creating a mass, even if imperceptive, for which far and distant bodies which might be a magnitude further away, can shrink behind.

There are actually multiple vanishing points at the horizon. Objects at differing heights will appear to reach the horizon either sooner or later than each other, non-consistently, as they are each traveling along their own perspective lines into their own vanishing points.. Consider a plane flying at 1000 feet and a plane flying at 40,000 feet. The higher plane will appear to descend into the earth slower than the lower plane. In fact, the lower plane will disappear into the horizon faster, long before the higher plane. We see  from that example, which is undeniably apparent, that there are multiple sets of vanishing points which are height dependent. In the mountain example, the land below has simply reached its vanishing point before the mountain, and that is why the land at the horizon is at eye level, and the mountain beyond that is still above the level of the eye, remaining so until sufficient distance puts it into the horizon.

The descriptions above are the same as those in Earth Not a Globe, logically intuitive, and are consequence of the observations of our natural world.

[Rama Set]

The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.

The dime might only block a small portion of a toe if the dime is right up against the elephant. But what if the elephant is 1000 feet behind the dime?

No, it still would not work.  Try and make a scale diagram of the light rays and see if you can get it to work.  Post it here when you are done.  The light would all have to curve down towards the dime.

What do you mean "to scale"? Perspective is not "to scale." Distant elephants are tiny, and are easily obscured by dimes.

To scale as in everything in the picture is shrunken down by the same factor.

<snipped irrelevant photo>
Everything gets compressed and shrunken with distance to perspective. If the elephant is illuminating one elephant worth of light in its immediate vicinity, at 1000 feet away where the elephant is smaller than a dime, and those light rays are likewise shrunken. The area the elephant is illuminating is now smaller than a dime.

You keep putting the dime at eye level but that is a completely irrelevant case. You can address my points or you can concede that your version of optics cannot work, but this straw man has become absurd.

[Tom Bishop]

I have been very clear. I don't know what you mean about light having to curve at all. Perhaps you should provide an illustration. Draw a perspective diagram with the horizon at eye level, and then put a dime on that horizon. Show me where the light curves. If you cannot coherently describe your position I am afraid there is little left for me to discuss here.

[Rama Set]

I have been very clear. I don't know what you mean about light having to curve at all. Perhaps you should provide an illustration. Draw a perspective diagram with the horizon at eye level, and then put a dime on that horizon. Show me where the light curves. If you cannot coherently describe your position I am afraid there is little left for me to discuss here.

My position is perfectly clear: a six foot tall person looking at a 6 foot tall object at any distance cannot, in any circumstances, have that view completely blocked by a 0.5cm obstruction which is resting in the ground, given that the Earth is level. The same holds for any obstruction which is shorter than both the observer and the subject.

[Tom Bishop]

I have been very clear. I don't know what you mean about light having to curve at all. Perhaps you should provide an illustration. Draw a perspective diagram with the horizon at eye level, and then put a dime on that horizon. Show me where the light curves. If you cannot coherently describe your position I am afraid there is little left for me to discuss here.

My position is perfectly clear: a six foot tall person looking at a 6 foot tall object at any distance cannot, in any circumstances, have that view completely blocked by a 0.5cm obstruction which is resting in the ground, given that the Earth is level. The same holds for any obstruction which is shorter than both the observer and the subject.

The ground ascends as it recedes, until it gets to the level of your eye. Just look outside in an area with no immediate obstructions. It looks like we live on the inside of a bowel. How is that?

[Rama Set]

I have been very clear. I don't know what you mean about light having to curve at all. Perhaps you should provide an illustration. Draw a perspective diagram with the horizon at eye level, and then put a dime on that horizon. Show me where the light curves. If you cannot coherently describe your position I am afraid there is little left for me to discuss here.

My position is perfectly clear: a six foot tall person looking at a 6 foot tall object at any distance cannot, in any circumstances, have that view completely blocked by a 0.5cm obstruction which is resting in the ground, given that the Earth is level. The same holds for any obstruction which is shorter than both the observer and the subject.

The ground ascends as it recedes, until it gets to the level of your eye. Just look outside in an area with no immediate obstructions. It looks like we live on the inside of a bowel. How is that if the ground is flat?

So the Earth is concave?  Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite?  Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper?  Why does the ascension of the Earth stop at the horizon and not continue? I don't know where you are going with this.

[Tom Bishop]

So the Earth is concave?  Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite?  Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper?  I don't know where you are going with this.

Theodolite evidence is addressed in Earth Not a Globe.

What I am getting at is that you are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.

Here is an analogy which will put the matter to rest:

Imagine we have a large pair of dice the size of a crate, say waist high. There are 6 multicolored sides, but only two sides are visible to you. The green number 5 is the side facing you, and the red number 3 is the top side facing upwards. If you are standing 2 feet away over dice and look down you will see mostly the top red number 3. As you walk away from the dice into the distance, the dimensions of the dice will change, the 3 will become squished with perspective as the side 5 faces you more. Eventually, if you get far enough, the 3 will not be visible at all, and you will be looking solely at the green number 5 side.

That the green number 5 is facing you head on, and the red number 3 cannot be seen, nor any other side of the box, can only mean that the light rays from the green face are traveling parallel to your eye, despite the box being supposedly lower than eye level.

Another example, imagine we have a long large tube sitting on the floor. Looking down on the tube next to it we see its cylindrical exterior. But the is possible to walk such a distance away from the tube, away from one of the openings, until we can see inside of it. And if the tube were on the horizon we could see through it entirely, and if we were aligned perfectly with the opening it would appear to us as a ring on the horizon.

Anyone knows that bodies in the distance on the horizon will be viewed from their side, no matter how short or tall. This fact, or even the fact that the angles change at all, demonstrates beyond doubt that the static straight line "side view" pathway of light you are imagining in your head does not really apply, and must account for matters of perspective. The angles literally change as bodies grow distant from you, as illustrated with the multicolored box example above. The angles will change so much, until you you have rotated a body 90 degrees between the time you stood over it and when it got to the horizon.

This phenomena is plain and visible, applies to "straight rays of light," and cannot be described without perspective.

[Rama Set]

So the Earth is concave?  Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite?  Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper?  I don't know where you are going with this.

Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.

What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement?  Did anyone else corroborate this?

You are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.

Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that.  Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards?  Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.

Here is an analogy which will put the matter to rest:

Imagine we have a large pair of dice the size of a crate, say waist high. There are 6 multicolored sides, but only two sides are visible to you. The green number 5 is the side facing you, and the red number 3 is the top side facing upwards. If you are standing 2 feet away over dice and look down you will see mostly the top red number 3. As you walk away from the dice into the distance, the dimensions of the dice will change, the 3 will become squished with perspective as the side 5 faces you more. Eventually, if you get far enough, the 3 will not be visible at all, and you will be looking solely at the green number 5 side.

The fact that the green number 5 is facing you face on, and the red number 3 cannot be seen, nor any other side of the box, can only mean that the light rays from the green face are traveling parallel to your eye, despite the box being supposedly lower than eye level.

I agree with your analogy because the red 3 is becoming closer and closer to parallel as you recede from it, however this is not the same as the prairies masking the Rockies is it?  So once again, you need to justify in some way how a very small obstruction, like a swell or a blade of grass or a dime apparently can obstruct something very tall like a light house or a mountain or an elephant with some sort of coherent description which should probably involve the light's path to the eye.

[Rayzor]

It looks like we live on the inside of a bowel. How is that?

Yes, it sometimes feels like that.   

[Tom Bishop]

So the Earth is concave?  Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite?  Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper?  I don't know where you are going with this.

Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.

What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement?  Did anyone else corroborate this?

You are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.

Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that.  Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards?  Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.

The lands are ascending via perspective, and this has physical consequences. Go back to the multicolored box example. The angle of the box changed in relation to you the further you got from it, until it was facing you head on. The angle of the light rays from the box changed as the distance was increased.

If something is now 90 degrees from the ground, straight ahead of you, those light rays are coming in parallel to the ground.

If we are in a room and hold a laser pointer up to the level of our eye and shine it at a wall at exactly 90 degrees from nadir (straight down), are those rays not arriving parallel to the ground? It stands therefore, that when looking across the horizon, if a body is 90 degrees from nadir, on top of the ascending earth horizon in the distance, those rays are also arriving parallel to the ground.

Your ideas that perspective does not apply to light are simply wrong. If something is straight ahead and facing you, its light is being broadcasted from that side you see.

Another example. Imagine we had a very large and powerful laser pointer resting on the ground. It is turned on and beaming a very narrow light beam right close along the surface.  When we are standing next to the laser pointer we are looking down at it. But it is possible to get that laser pointer to shine on our face, directly into our eyes, by simply walking away from it (in the direction of the beam) until such a distance that the laser pointer is on the horizon and we are looking at it from its side. The straight beam of light, which is being broadcasted right near the flat surface, is now in our eyes. Since you agree with the multicolored box example, you must logically agree with this as well, which illustrates the matter succinctly.