[TotesNotReptilian]

I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.

Completely dishonest. You used an arbitrary reference point, one designed to get the results YOU need, rather that the wake disturbance that is clearly parallel  the POV.

Are you kidding me? I used an actually horizontal line obviously parallel to the ground. Why would the wake be the right thing to use anyway? First of all, it would be maybe 15-20 feet below the point of view. Secondly the wake tapers out as you move, not sure if you've ever seen wake behind a boat or not.

So tell me again, who arbitrarily chose something to draw lines on something?

What horizontal line parallel to the ground are you talking about? Your red lines look completely arbitrary to me. Also, what does being 15-20 feet below the point of view have to do with anything?

That being said, wakes aren't necessarily exactly parallel, although they usually look very close to parallel. I wouldn't consider this proof of anything.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Do you see the horizontal lines on the wall? Not at all arbitrary. The other one is just a reflect of that. Even if you trace from the other physical line on the wall It will reach the same point.

The laws of perspective aren't up for debate. They are very clean cut, the fact some here say a vinishing point doesnt "exist" is astounding.

[Tom Bishop]

The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Do you see the horizontal lines on the wall?

I see that line, but why did you draw your line several inches below it?

The other one is just a reflect of that.

How did you generate this reflection? It certainly isn't mirrored horizontally over the image (not that that would be appropriate). It looks like you just randomly chose a line that would intersect the right line on the horizon.

Even if you trace from the other physical line on the wall It will reach the same point.

Oh really?


Once again, the vanishing point is above the horizon. (Assuming those lines are actually parallel in reality. I can't say for sure that they are.)

The laws of perspective aren't up for debate. They are very clean cut,

Could you actually explain these laws? If you know them so well and they aren't up for debate, surely you can explain them to us?

the fact some here say a vinishing point doesnt "exist" is astounding.

No one said that. They said the vanishing point isn't necessarily on the horizon.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.

They are referring to the turbulent/aerated water created by the engine, not the diverging wave pattern. Regardless, I agree with you that it isn't necessarily parallel.

On a slightly different subject, you ignored my post that directly refuted your earlier comments in the thread. Care to comment?

[Rounder]

Can't we all agree that drawing lines on a photo will not convince anyone of anything, and go in another direction?

[Unsure101]

We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.

Please explain how this actually occurs?
If the sun/moon are spheres (as declared by your wiki), but do not sink, how are they both observed to sink, illuminate the underneath of the clouds and appear as circles as they sink below the horizon?

The sun is also going behind a lot of atmosphere as it recedes. When it is near the horizon it is already dimmed by an order of magnitude than when it overhead at noonday. You can look directly at it without squinting. After it merges into the horizon the sky is still relatively illuminated. It takes several hours for the blackness of night to set in, which indicates that the opacity of the atmosphere has increased significantly.

The clouds appear to illuminate from the "bottom" because the sun's rays are hitting the backside of that cloud at a more horizontal angle. You are standing beneath the cloud, so you are only seeing that back end which is illuminated, which looks like the "bottom" since the backside is further from you than the frontside of the cloud.

Um, there is a complete difference between the back of the cloud and the underside. It would be impossible for the underside to be illuminated if the sun was above the cloud, unless you take into account the magic bendy light caused the the FE aether.

[rabinoz]

The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.

Yes, the white water wakes do widen with distance, but nowhere near as fast as the bow-wave does.

There have been studies on it and while it varies a bit with wind direction, typically it varies fairly slowly and might be be
100 m wide 1000 m from the ship, and
180 m wide 6000 m from the ship.

These figures are from 100s of actual measurements on a very large cruise ship, though not the P & O one in the photo.

But, the only inference I made from the wake photo was that was not zero width at the visible horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.

Yes, the white water wakes do widen with distance, but nowhere near as fast as the bow-wave does.

There have been studies on it and while it varies a bit with wind direction, typically it varies fairly slowly and might be be
100 m wide 1000 m from the ship, and
180 m wide 6000 m from the ship.

These figures are from 100s of actual measurements on a very large cruise ship, though not the P & O one in the photo.

But, the only inference I made from the wake photo was that was not zero width at the visible horizon.

How about simply posting an appropriate example rather than waves behind a ship?

[Rounder]

How about simply posting an appropriate example rather than waves behind a ship?

Care to suggest something you would consider "an appropriate example"?

[Setec Astronomy]

If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?

Does this "someone" have a name, or does he only exist in your imagination?
If he only exists in your imagination, I suggest he cannot "see" anything, including the sun, moon, and any stars.

[Round fact]

If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?

Does this "someone" have a name, or does he only exist in your imagination?
If he only exists in your imagination, I suggest he cannot "see" anything, including the sun, moon, and any stars.

You'll do well here with the rest of shallow FE minds incapable of grasping a simple question. Welcome to the site.

[Unsure101]

If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?

Does this "someone" have a name, or does he only exist in your imagination?
If he only exists in your imagination, I suggest he cannot "see" anything, including the sun, moon, and any stars.

Yes, his name is James.

[rabinoz]

The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.

Yes, the white water wakes do widen with distance, but nowhere near as fast as the bow-wave does.

There have been studies on it and while it varies a bit with wind direction, typically it varies fairly slowly and might be be
100 m wide 1000 m from the ship, and
180 m wide 6000 m from the ship.

These figures are from 100s of actual measurements on a very large cruise ship, though not the P & O one in the photo.

But, the only inference I made from the wake photo was that was not zero width at the visible horizon.

How about simply posting an appropriate example rather than waves behind a ship?

Not quite what you are asking for but:

To me at least that looks like a sailing boat closer than the visible horizon and buildings well behind the visible horizon. Again, in my humble opinion of course, that demonstrates that the visible horizon is not the "vanishing point".

Again:

Likewise, to me, that seems to be a sailing ship at the same distance as the visible horizon ("on" the horizon), and clearly is not yet at the vanishing point.

This one shows the Suez Canal going to the horizon. I would rather have had one taken with a normal lens and not a wide angle like this - any appearance of curvature is the camera!

From - Timelapse of Adrian Mærsk sailing down the expanded Suez Canal

There are undoubtedly better examples, but the visible horizon need not be the vanishing point, in fact to me the "vanishing point" is an aid to drawing, not a "physical point". Small objects seem to vanish in quite a short distance. If the resolution of the human eye is about 1' of arc (as I believe the Wiki says) the vanishing distances would be about:
    4 miles for a person,
  65 miles for a sailing ship with 100' masts
130 miles for the 200' width of New Suez canal (but with the quality of that photo and lack of contrast, I doubt it would be that far) and
650 miles for a 1000' building.

So, we would not expect the visible horizon to be the "vanishing point".

[Venus]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

Tom Bishop ... can you please answer how the Flat Earth Model can explain the different observations from the northern and southern hemispheres?
I shall repeat them again.... all are irrefutable ... any hobbyist astronomer can make these observations by simple travelling to the opposite hemisphere and taking a telescope with them>

How does the flat earth model explain ...
1. The fact that 'down' here (ie Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, and many of the other stars which can be seen from the northern hemisphere, yet many of the stars that we can see cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. eg http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/constellations-hemisphere-northern-southern-43823091.jpg
2. In the southern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris)
3. In the southern hemisphere we see a different view of the moon compared to the view from the northern hemisphere (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg)
4. In the southern hemisphere the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)

To me these four observations, all of which I have observed myself in my travels, cannot be explained by a flat earth model ... yes I have read all of your Q&A's and your wiki ... no answers there
Considering you are a Zetetic Council Member I'm sure you can come up with some answer !!

But you will no doubt ignore me !!

[Tom Bishop]

Tom Bishop ... can you please answer how the Flat Earth Model can explain the different observations from the northern and southern hemispheres?
I shall repeat them again.... all are irrefutable ... any hobbyist astronomer can make these observations by simple travelling to the opposite hemisphere and taking a telescope with them>

How does the flat earth model explain ...
1. The fact that 'down' here (ie Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, and many of the other stars which can be seen from the northern hemisphere, yet many of the stars that we can see cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. eg

In the Flat Earth literature William Carpenter tells us of accounts where Polaris was seen beyond the equator. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter with accounts of seeing Polaris at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator.

2. In the southern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris)

The stars are rotating against each other like two gears. I prefer the bi-polar Flat Earth model where the center of these gears are over the two poles.

3. In the southern hemisphere we see a different view of the moon compared to the view from the northern hemisphere (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg)

This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

4. In the southern hemisphere the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)

This has the same explanation of above.

[Rama Set]

Tom Bishop ... can you please answer how the Flat Earth Model can explain the different observations from the northern and southern hemispheres?
I shall repeat them again.... all are irrefutable ... any hobbyist astronomer can make these observations by simple travelling to the opposite hemisphere and taking a telescope with them>

How does the flat earth model explain ...
1. The fact that 'down' here (ie Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, and many of the other stars which can be seen from the northern hemisphere, yet many of the stars that we can see cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. eg

In the Flat Earth literature William Carpenter tells us of accounts where Polaris was seen beyond the equator. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter with accounts of seeing Polaris at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator.

That claim has been dealt with extensively on the other site and has been shown that the claim made by William Carpenter was not impossible on a RE.  Rowbotham merely asserts his claim, so there is no good reason to believe him.  No one should bother engaging with this tired example.

2. In the southern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris)

The stars are rotating against each other like two gears. I prefer the bi-polar Flat Earth model where the center of these gears are over the two poles.

Citation required.  What is the nature of the "gears"?

3. In the southern hemisphere we see a different view of the moon compared to the view from the northern hemisphere (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg)

This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

4. In the southern hemisphere the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)

This has the same explanation of above.

The RE explanation is superior because it can accurately account for the variation in phases, which are not simply a rotational transformation. 

[rabinoz]

In the Flat Earth literature William Carpenter tells us of accounts where Polaris was seen beyond the equator. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter with accounts of seeing Polaris at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator.

I would need a tremendous lot more evidence than William Carpenter!

There is of course the ultimate authority, which refutes Carpenter!

DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveler approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible.

I cannot find where "Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter", though that does not mean he doesn't, but the above statement by Rowbotham from "the Wiki" seems to contradict William Carpenter's claim!

And of course this is the William Carpenter with the wondrous "Hundred Proofs":

8.

If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best ­ because the truest ­ thing for the.navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

10.

That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school­books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.

11.	As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.[/b]
13.	As the mariners' compass points north and south at one and the same time, and a meridian is a north and south line, it follows that meridians can be no other than straight lines. But, since all meridians on a globe are semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth is not a globe.
20.	The common sense of man tells him ­ if nothing else told him ­ that there is an "up" and a "down" in ­nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense ­ yes, and to inspiration ­ and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.
22.	God's Truth never­ no, never ­ requires a falsehood to help it along. Mr. Proctor, in his "Lessons," says: Men "have been able to go round and round the Earth in several directions." Now, in this case, the word "several will imply more than two, unquestionably: whereas, it is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane.. Now, since astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that their cause is a bad one, and a proof that Earth is not a globe.
29.	If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics ­ no matter its size ­ as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one ­ no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, bas no sides or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
37.	If the Earth were a globe, there would, very likely, be (for nobody knows) six months day and six months night at the arctic and antarctic regions, as astronomers dare to assert there is: ­ for their theory demands it! But, as this fact ­ the six months day and six months night­ is; nowhere found but in the arctic regions, it agrees perfectly with everything else that we know about the Earth as a plane, and, whilst it overthrows the "accepted theory," it furnishes a striking proof that Earth is not a globe.
55.	The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow" her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

If this is any indication of William Carpenter's grasp on logic and fact, I would not give any weight to anything he claimed! I hope you don't claim ANY of this twisted logic as "proof that the Earth is not a globe."

So if, "In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter with accounts of seeing Polaris at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator." I will be charitable and simply claim that are wrong and somehow mis-informed!

I live not far south of S 23.5° and have often travelled north (far north - like as far as you can go and still be in Australia) and have not seen Polaris! Yes, I know THAT is not proof that no-one has, but still I am afraid I for one will take a lot of convincing!

[İntikam]

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
How remiss of me!

Of course receding parallel lines "appear to touch", who would query that (in Euclidean and I assume almost any space)?
But receding parallel lines might not appear to meet at the "horizon". Here is a ships wahe extending nice and straight to the horizon, but they don't converge ON the horizon.
That seems quite significant to me. But of course I know that a bit of magical "Rowbotham perspective will fix that".

P&O Ships wake to horizon

eye delusion. blisters of the water are spreading.

Care about this:

[İntikam]

If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?

Polaris would be 13.09 degrees above the horizon and being a less than 2 magnitude star, easy to see.

If the Earth is globe and "spinning, turning" why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris any day at night?