[Mock]

Light travels in straight lines, doesn't it? And I've read multiple times on here that refraction is minimal in our atmosphere / plane / whatever. (It doesn't seem to be an argument FE theory uses to explain weird perspective stuff either. Everytime I've read about it, people like Tom Bishop just say we don't know how perspective works on large scales, and then stop explaining.)

So, do we all agree light travels in straight lines?
And if that is the case, what do y'all mean by "we don't know how perspective works at big distances"?
I seriously do not understand it. Please explain.

[Tom Bishop]

It means that there is a lack of evidence and knowledge on that topic. Any further questions?

[Mock]

Yes.

To me, it sounds like you're basically saying "Of course we know two plus two equals four, but we don't know how numbers work at bigger scales and therefore you can't expect me to accept that ten billion divided by two equal five billion. Where is your evidence high numbers actually work the same way as low numbers?"

Light (or "perspective") - just like maths - has specific laws that define how stuff works. "Perspective" is nothing but the result of light hitting your eyes at a certain angle and whatnot, and light travels in straight lines and that is a scientifically proven FACT. If you believe that for some reason it behaves differently in an arbitrarily selected range of "greater than normal" distances, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why that is and how it occurs.

Edit: So my question is, why should light behave differently (and in the way you need it to for your theory to make sense) when coming from a greater distance to the observer? And if you think it does, where is your evidence?

Edit 2: Corrected stupid math mistake.

[Tom Bishop]

The Ancient Greeks assumed that two receding perspective lines will never touch each other, infinitely. There is no evidence for this.

Per the question of light; that is profoundly affected by perspective. For example, if you look out at a flat horizon at sea level, the horizon will appear to rise to your eye level and it will appear that you are inside of a bowel. But are the photons really traveling off of a bowel's surface? Not at all. Perspective causes that illusion.

[Mock]

The Ancient Greeks assumed that two receding perspective lines will never touch each other, infinitely. There is no evidence for this.

Why wouldn't there be evidence for this? You can accurately calculate if and where two lines meet with simple math.

Per the question of light; that is profoundly affected by perspective. For example, if you look out at a flat horizon at sea level, the horizon will appear to rise to your eye level and it will appear that you are inside of a bowel. But are the photons really traveling off of a bowel's surface? Not at all. Perspective causes that illusion.

I don't know what you're talking about. A bowel? Actually even if you mean bowl, I don't get your example. Are there photons moving in any other fashion than a straight line in your given example? And if so, what's the evidencce for that? Because I think it would be a groundbreaking discovery...

[Tom Bishop]

Why wouldn't there be evidence for this? You can accurately calculate if and where two lines meet with simple math.

According to the Ancient Greeks two parallel lines will recede for infinity without ever touching. It is contradictory to logic that two lines approaching each other will never meet, but that is the current theory of perspective.

I don't know what you're talking about. A bowel? Actually even if you mean bowl, I don't get your example. Are there photons moving in any other fashion than a straight line in your given example? And if so, what's the evidencce for that? Because I think it would be a groundbreaking discovery...

Perspective also causes invisibility. In a rail road perspective scene do you see any of the billions of photons of the rail road tracks beyond the Vanishing Point?

[inquisitive]

Why wouldn't there be evidence for this? You can accurately calculate if and where two lines meet with simple math.

According to the Ancient Greeks two parallel lines will recede for infinity without ever touching. It is contradictory to logic that two lines approaching each other will never meet, but that is the current theory of perspective.

I don't know what you're talking about. A bowel? Actually even if you mean bowl, I don't get your example. Are there photons moving in any other fashion than a straight line in your given example? And if so, what's the evidencce for that? Because I think it would be a groundbreaking discovery...

Perspective also causes invisibility. In a rail road perspective scene do you see any of the billions of photons of the rail road tracks beyond the Vanishing Point?

Perspective does not cause invisability, silly statement.

[Mock]

Why wouldn't there be evidence for this? You can accurately calculate if and where two lines meet with simple math.

According to the Ancient Greeks two parallel lines will recede for infinity without ever touching. It is contradictory to logic that two lines approaching each other will never meet, but that is the current theory of perspective.

Are they approaching each other or parallel now? Something does sound contradictory, but it's not the Greeks. Two lines approaching each other will meet, and nobody in their right mind doubts that. Two parallel lines won't, which is also provable (and also common knowledge, for that matter).

In fact, it WOULD be contradictory two parallel lines DID meet. As I said, it's simple math. Two straight lines with the linear functions
f(x)=4x+2 ; g(x)=4x+5
are parallel right? Now try equating the two functions to find their intersection:
4x+2=4x+5
It's already messed up at this point really, but it becomes clear when we we subtract 4x from both sides. 2=5? That's a contradiction right in your face when we assume that parallel lines meet at some point.

As you can see, what you portray as an "Ancient Greek idea that two parallel lines will recede for infinity without touching" is actually a fact accepted by people everywhere around the world that can and has been proven by math and logic, and the proof of which I delivered already. The burden of proof that this widely accepted and proven "Ancient Greek theory" is in fact wrong is on you, and if you are really going to assert that it is, I expect more than your usual one-line comment. Mathematical theories are proven and disproven with mathematical facts, not anecdotal evidence.

Edit: Also, you have failed to directly answer my previous question:

Why should light behave differently (and in the way you need it to for your theory to make sense) when coming from a greater distance to the observer? And if you think it does, where is your evidence?

Come on, please at least put some effort into discussions. Both responses in your last post are vague and sort of missing the point.

E2: Formatting.