He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".
But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero. If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective. The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world. Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping! Not allowed!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.QuoteSo he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective. The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world. Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping! Not allowed!
Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.QuoteSo he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective. The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world. Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping! Not allowed!
Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.QuoteSo he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective. The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world. Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping! Not allowed!
Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.
The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.
Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?
That model isn't about the horizon. The horizon is an illusion of the eye. The model shows where the sun actually is. 20 degrees above the horizontal. Which means you need to figure out how perspective can not only account for that, but why it affects everything else too. Perspective is an artist tool, as is the vanishing point. Neither exist as physical realities.At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?
I don't have that equation. The fact that the horizon exists and that model says that the horizon does not exist is a simple enough demonstration that the model is inaccurate to reality.
That model isn't about the horizon. The horizon is an illusion of the eye. The model shows where the sun actually is. 20 degrees above the horizontal. Which means you need to figure out how perspective can not only account for that, but why it affects everything else too. Perspective is an artist tool, as is the vanishing point. Neither exist as physical realities.
So once again. Where is your proof/evidence that this all works the way you say it should and has to in order for your sun to set? Remember, the sun/moon can't be pointed to for your evidence here.
Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective4.png)
The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.QuoteFinally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective4.png)
The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".
Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.
Therefore, if the sun is sufficiently far away to where the vertical planks are merged together, the distance the sun has to travel between states becomes constant. The horizontal dividers of different perceived lengths between the vertical planks that hold them together no longer exist.
The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance (what is basically seen in the above picture).
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.
In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.
The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.
If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.
The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.
If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.
This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?
How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.
If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.
This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?
How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?
In the side-view model we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon.
Since we know that there is a horizon we know that the side-view model presented is inaccurate and thus cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.
This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?
How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?
In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.
Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.
You're making assumptions that don't work based on wildly misunderstood idea of perspective somehow affecting the real world. It doesn't. Perspective is a visual tool to transcribe 3D space into a 2D view/plane. That's it. It doesn't affect the world, it doesn't work like that. Vanishing point is the same thing. It's an art construct to create a 3D effect.You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.
Mathematics only reflects the model it is trying to describe. If the model is wrong, the math is wrong.
In order for 2 + 2 to equal 4, certain assumptions about the underlying model must be true. In some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world.
Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view. (I'm with a phone right now, but I can easily do it later*). It's high school drawing theory, really.
Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.
you keep saying this, without understanding the consequences. But perhaps we can go a different route. How does vision works, Tom?
Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.
Who proved false the observation that high flying planes that fly over you move more consistently across the sky than very low planes that fly over you?The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.
If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.
This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?
How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?
In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.
Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.
There is nothing wrong with the side view!
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.
The horizon is not represented in that size view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.
However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.
NOT when the model is about finding the location of the sun. The vanishing point is not a physical thing. The ground does not physically rise up to meet your eyes (right? Dear lord I hope we agree on this) it just seems that way. Therefore we can ignore it when attempting to find where something is actually located. As the sideview image does. It shows us the angle to the sun when it's setting, as that makes it vertically over a point about 6,000 miles away. What then has to be explained is how perspective accounts for, not only getting the sun 20 degrees closer to the ground, but how light is coming in at less than the actual angle it is above the horizontal. Again, unless you want to claim perspective is showing us where the sun actually is...somehow.The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world.
Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.
The horizon is a function of attempting to see a 3D world in 2D. Perspective and vanishing point are both artistic concepts to help do this in drawings. The 'exist' in the real world, but not in the same way. But how about you define them both for us then, hmm?Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.
Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.
Perspective is not merely an "art concept". The horizon is seen in the real world; it's not purely artistic.
This is complete babbling. The mountain shows nothing, as the mountain rises above the plane of the eye. You're focusing too much on this 'infinity' idea Tom. In reality something can and will get close enough that it will vanish far before infinity. But 20 degrees is NOT a negligible amount that meets the requirements for such a feat.There is nothing wrong with the side view!
Yes, there is something wrong. Under that side view model things would infinitely approach the horizon, but never touch it. The fact that a distant mountain can get above the level of the horizon line shows that the model is inaccurate in its assumptions and representations of reality.
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.
The horizon is not represented in that size view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.
However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?
The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.
The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.
The ground does rise, the sun does dip, and mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.
Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change?
Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.
Those are not different, they are both correct! It's exactly the same geometry, same angles, same light travelling in straight lines, applied in the same way.did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?
I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.
The diagram you posted seems to be a Round Earth model explanation for a horizon which we are not talking about.
I'm gonna stop you right there Tom, because you are completely incorrect. Now stop pretending the model is saying things it doesn't. It ONLY talks about the actual position of the sun and it's relation to the observer. Since perspective doesn't affect the actual position of objects, perspective is irrelevant.QuoteMountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.
Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to get above the horizon line. It is impossible for anything on the ground to even get to the horizon line; let alone intersect it.
This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.
Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change?
Once again; perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, which is the determination of relative position, not the position of a body.QuoteMountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.
Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to get above the horizon line. It is impossible for anything on the ground to even get to the horizon line; let alone intersect it.
This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.
I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.
The ground does rise to the horizon, overhead bodies like planes do descend to the horizon, and it is possible for the tops of mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.
Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!Yes - at infinity.
The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.That's only a problem for your flat earth. In a round earth, the railroad tracks curve over the horizon before they "meet". God knows what they do on a flat earth....I guess they just disappear into the haze...I don't have to defend what happens in a flat earth model...and the FACT that it conflicts with reality is your problem.
Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.
* If the earth is flat then your objections to the diagram are entirely valid...and YOU need to explain to US what's wrong with it...because the only three assumptions it makes are:
a) The earth is flat.
b) Light travels in straight lines.
c) The sun is a long way above the ground.
Because (as you VERY correctly say) the diagram doesn't agree with reality - then one of those three assumptions I made when I drew it must be incorrect.
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.
Thank you Tom - you just helped to disprove the flat earth!
In a FLAT earth - you're right, the peak of a mountain cannot ever be on the horizon...and my diagram elegantly demonstrates that.
In a ROUND earth - my diagram has to have a curved "ground" - and in that situation, the top of a mountain can indeed be on the horizon (or below it).
I do not claim my diagram proves that the earth is flat...to the contrary, it disproves it...which does not make it "wrong" - it makes it "right".
Your claim that "the ground rises to the horizon" is an oft-stated thing in FET - but it's not true. If you fly a military fighter airplane with a heads-up-display, you see that the "artificial horizon" is considerably higher than the actual horizon at high altitudes - yet perfectly aligned with it at sea level.
Ah, but you see we're not attempting to make a model that fits the flat Earth. We're checking to see if the flat Earth can even exist in a way that reflects reality. What this is showing us is the impossibility of sunset on a flat Earth, as described by the viewing angles we know exist. We are NOT attempting to have this model FE. We are attempting to see if the Earth could even BE flat. If the reality doesn't match the number, there is no flat Earth. YOU have to show how perspective or the horizon, or what have you, makes up for the sun ACTUALLY being at a 20 degree angle when it should be at a zero degree angle.So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.
We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.
If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.
You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.
Its OK now this genius has arrived we'll have this case closed in a jiffy (he was in the navy you know). UzZIBiKeR dude you are truly our saviour! PS read the Wiki.......Yikes! Tom said that all members of the Navy are "untrustworthy murderers" - and when asked to retract that statement, he simply double-downed on it...so be careful whom you support UzZIBiKeR!
We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.
If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.
You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.
The higher you go the farther the horizon would be, but unfortunately you do not listen very well. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. At extreme altitudes, such as from a military fighter jet in your example, you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere. The true "horizon" at very high altitudes is farther than what you see.
You can tell that this is happening because at high altitudes where the artificial horizon on a plane's instrumentation is above the observable horizon, the horizon is no longer sharp or defined, and is seen as a gradual gradient. It should be no surprise, then, under such conditions basically absent of a horizon that the artificial horizon would be above the level of the land.
It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.
Repeating for emphasis:It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.
This is a classic proof by contradiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction).
1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)
badaboom, realest globe in the room
'Perspective' does not behave, it's simply about describing things in the distance.Repeating for emphasis:It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.
This is a classic proof by contradiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction).
1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)
badaboom, realest globe in the room
And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?QuoteIt's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.
Do you agree with these assumptions?
Read this line carefully everyone:
If a light ray starts off at the sun (around 3,000 miles above the ground) - and if it travels in a straight line - and if it ends up going horizontally into our eyes (or into a pinhole camera) to produce a sunset - THEN the Earth cannot be flat.
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.
The Ancient Greeks, who came up with that theory, have never demonstrated that hypothesis. No attempt of evidence has been provided, or even attempted. That idea is completely hypothetical. Why should we base reality on completely hypothetical ideas?
You claim to know the "rules" of the universe, but have no piece of evidence to point towards to justify your idea that perspective lines infinitely approach each other.
The only true rules come from the universe itself, and it is observed that a horizon exists. If your hypothetical rule list can't comprehend with that when you attempt to make a model, then tough. It's wrong.
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?QuoteIt's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.
Do you agree with these assumptions?
You have no knowledge how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?
I did, it's an awful mess. No you draw one with all the correct quotes. While you are at it, please answer my more serious question about assumptions :)The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?
Watch the video in the OP.
A) Cameras operate using the same system of vision we do. They are equipped to 'see' the world in much the same way we do, because we know of no other way to view the world in a visual manner.A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.
P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.
P1. Cameras without lenses experience perspective
C. Perspective is not a lens phenomenonQuoteB) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.
Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.QuoteC) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.
The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.
You are still clinging onto your very own definition of perspective. It's not clear what you are trying to prove.A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.
P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.
P1. Cameras without lenses experience perspective
C. Perspective is not a lens phenomenonQuoteB) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.
Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.QuoteC) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.
The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?
You have no knowledge on how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?
If that space of 3,000 miles is merged to one point, and that point is level with our eye, than it makes perfect sense that the photons travel along that path and reach our eye. The point is 90 degrees from zenith in its orientation around us; therefore the light is approaching the eye from that 90 degree angle.
If we see the sun at the horizon at that 90 degree angle, the sun also sees us at its horizon at a 90 degree angle. The photons are leaving the sun at the same angle they are coming in. 90 degrees. There is no contradiction.
You are assuming that it is only all incoming light that is squished with perspective. It is also all outgoing light that is squished. You are assuming that it is only human eyes that experience perspective. All objects experience perspective. From the POV of the sun, it is sending out a photon directly at the observer.
The actual path is IRRELEVENT in your attempted model of the scene because, as we have already discussed, the model is an incorrect representation of reality. It only represents how you think things should be based on rules which have never been seen. No one has ever seen your infinitely-approaching-perspective-lines nonsense. That is completely hypothetical.
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?
The Ancient Greeks, who came up with that theory, have never demonstrated that hypothesis. No attempt of evidence has been provided, or even attempted. That idea is completely hypothetical. Why should we base reality on completely hypothetical ideas?
You claim to know the "rules" of the universe, but have no piece of evidence to point towards to justify your idea that perspective lines infinitely approach each other.
The only true rules come from the universe itself, and it is observed that a horizon exists. If your hypothetical rule list can't comprehend with that when you attempt to make a model, then tough. It's wrong.
The actual path is IRRELEVENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk
Hi, everyone.
I didn't want to start a new thread so I posted here.
I am new here.I have found an interesting video about horizon and curvature.
This is a Turning Torso building (190m tall).
Building works as a scale.The video shows building from different distances ranges (25-50 km).
It shows when you zoom, some parts of the building are not visible due to the curvature of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk
Hi, everyone.
I didn't want to start a new thread so I posted here.
I am new here.I have found an interesting video about horizon and curvature.
This is a Turning Torso building (190m tall).
Building works as a scale.The video shows building from different distances ranges (25-50 km).
It shows when you zoom, some parts of the building are not visible due to the curvature of the earth.
View-over-water experiments are difficult because you have perspective and earth curvature (or not, depending on which side of the debate you're on) - and close to the water, you get mirages and such which confuse where the precise horizon line is. It's very difficult to do this accurately - so the results are unconvincing.
The picture he's looking at shows that the further away the object gets, the smaller the angle to the ground it gets. This is reasonable - light travels in straight lines. If we extended the diagram off to the right with more and more equally spaced suns, the angle would get smaller and smaller - right?Correct, the angle relative to us would, I don't see where this could go with perspective, but lets see.
At a billion miles, the angle would be a tiny fraction of a degree - at a trillion miles, still smaller - and at INFINITY the angle would be ZERO...or as close to zero as matters (the math term is "Infinitesimal" - one divided by infinity - not strictly zero - but essentially that).No, that is not how it works in terms of perspective.
This IS the standard law of perspective.
The further two parallel train tracks lead away from you, the narrower the perceived angle between them. But even at a billion miles, they don't quite meet. Only infinitely far from the eye to those train tracks come together.You can't perceive a billion miles, they converge because distances become indistinguishable at such distances.
He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".It isn't, it is missing how optical perspective actually works and replacing it with geometry without basis in reality.
But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero. If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?The angle is decreasing because of how distances and wavelengths of light hit our eyes or however you are viewing it, the geometric angle indeed plays a role but the angle is not our perception.
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective. The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world. Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping! Not allowed!That diagram is without basis in reality, it doesn't relate to distance perception at all.
At 2:43, he's just added some suns moving downwards - but the sun isn't moving downwards in the real world - only in the eye of the viewer. The original diagram is showing the path of the actual photons...the rays of light traveling from the sun to the viewer.Those window shades aren't either but they follow such an apparent path.
He's overlaid a side-on diagram onto a sloping wall...WTF? How does that prove anything? You can't just take a 2D side-on diagram and paste it onto a photograph taken at some random angle and demand that they line up perfectly! What kind of a bullshit claim is *THAT*?If you understood the context of the video, you would know that the point was that convergence of these perspective lines don't exist in this model he is criticizing, which completely contradicts with what we actually see with the window shades example brought here.
but you can see that the stickman's eyeline matches the eyeline in the photo - and the sun gets closer to the horizon in the same way that the strips on the wall do.The lines in that model never intersect, but that's exactly what they are doing here, approaching intersection which is easily visible in our reality. So, if this were the case, we could never perceive a steepening consistency of convergence paths, since perspective lines wouldn't angle towards a point.
Now he's just made another mistake. The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png)
Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
What we see is that FAR from reaching the "horizon" at 6pm, the effect of perspective is shortening the *visual* distance between the consecutive sun positions...so although the sun is indeed lowering in the sky - it'll never reach it because it's moving smaller and smaller distances with each hour that passes.
Equally spaced pillars getting closer together as they get shorter. The number of pillars needed before the height of the building is zero has to be infinite because every time you halve the height of the building, you double the number of columns you needWhich is incorrect and faulty misunderstanding of perspective, as I have explained.
This is WHY the FE sun can never set.You failed to provide any justification for that proposition.
The problem is that he's guilty of PRECISELY the thing that he falsely accuses the original diagram of. He's using a 2D representation fo the sun on a 3D photograph of a real world thing.Yes you can, it is for simplicity of the concept.
You simply can't do that.
You can prove your point with a 2D diagram - or you can prove it with a 3D photographic visualization - but the instant you mix the two - you screwed up.There isn't an inherent difference in terms of visual representations. So, I don't know what you are implying here.
Clearly the guy who made it DOESN'T understand the first thing about how perspective works.Exactly what you showed, misunderstanding of perception.
So...RE-BUNKED! (is that even a word?)Not at all, you failed to debunk or successfully counter anything here and relied on false concepts.
The angle is decreasing because of how distances and wavelengths of light hit our eyes or however you are viewing it, the geometric angle indeed plays a role but the angle is not our perception.how, pray tell, does our vision works?
Not at all, you failed to debunk or successfully counter anything here and relied on false concepts.
how, pray tell, does our vision works?It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point. As frames shrink, they reach a point of convergence as seen by our perception. This is fundamental, there isn't magical non-intersecting lines angled at a compressed frame where apparent distances converge, they do intersect due to the fact that our field of vision shrinks to an imperceptible angular distance, that's a point from our perspective, the point of convergence. The video here got that right, and the OP brings nonsensical gobblygook to run it over, and fails.
uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things? How do the eye works?how, pray tell, does our vision works?It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point.
It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.
Your post basically just says "no it doesn't", "this isn't how it works" and stuff like that.I'm correcting your misunderstandings and nonsensical rebuttals to this video, I included illustrations that I presume would help.
It doesn't say WHY you believe that.I pointed out that it's because we observe it, not this 'infinite angular distance perception' nonsense.
My post very carefully explains - point by point - WHY the original video is wrong.And gets it wrong, and that's a problem, so I point it out.
That's how rational debate works. You're treating this like the Monty Python "Argument sketch".Which is why I pointed out what you got wrong, and I explained myself, it's up to you to be rational and consider what I'm saying and explain yourself more.
Your photo of train tracks doesn't ACTUALLY show the train tracks meeting. Let's zoom into it:That's because we can perceive the distances between the tracks at our distance, just significantly more compressed and approaching the same point of convergence which frames reach a point at due to the convergence of our vision with our angular resolution. Doesn't rebut anything I said. You exclaimed that at every possible finite distance, we can perceive the same distances of parallel lines and can never meet at indistinguishable differences with our eyes, which is clearly false by the sight of converging parallel lines all pointing to one direction. This is impossible in what you claim here, as lines can't approach (graphing two approaching lines will have them meet at a finite distance between coordinates).
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/vanishing.jpg)
Nope - they don't meet.
You say that we can't see things a billion miles away - but that's not true.
The distances between become less distinguishable at farther distances and so the farther distances produce no such effect, relative to the distances to the point of convergence, the above frames sizes become more similar until they are indistinguishable differences from our standpoint.Seeing celestial objects is not the same as perceiving angular distances by a point, the sun's descent follows these similar angular distances with a consistent descent. How this connects is that distances we can't perceive (being at a point) represent perspective lines that converge. Angular diameter however is gonna vary by the size and distance while having no bearing on our frame convergence. This is why the sun could be said to be beyond the apex of perspective lines, in that it is beyond perceivable distances with frames and so moves through them as celestial object at a consistent rate.
In RET, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is visible to the naked-eye and it's 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. Even in your flat-earth "universe" you can certainly see the star "polaris" from somewhere near to the equator - and in your idea of the world, it's at least 6,700 miles away.It's pretty large to be seen and much larger frame angles, basically the field of view in the environment through which the lines meet. Distances traversed would be convergent in that it's movement would be more consistent as distances appear to converge quite similarly relative to our overall horizon distance.
So we CAN see things that are 6,700 miles away...for sure...even in FET. So I certainly COULD see hypothetical train tracks that were going out to 6,700 miles.
The problem with the idea that train tracks meet sometime before infinity is this: Suppose parallel train tracks met at 5 miles from your eye. What would happen if we climbed a ladder so we could see 10 miles?
I can only think of three possibilities:Your frame (field of vision rectangle) would be larger at higher altitudes and therefore more distance to have lines approach each other beyond your visual angle to reach an apparent point. Perspective lines broaden and you visualize farther.
1) They meet at 5 miles, cross over and then get further and further apart until they are as far apart as they are up-close.
2) They meet at 5 miles, and then continue on as one straight line for the next 5 miles. That doesn't work because light travels in straight lines - and the straight train tracks would have an abrupt kink in them at 5 miles....so the light from beyond 5 miles would have to kink too.
3) They simply "vanish" at 5 miles.
What would happen if we had the entire ground in front of us completely covered in parallel train tracks - parallel train tracks going off towards the horizon left and right of us for 1000 miles in each direction.They would all branch off to a horizon surrounding us where perspective lines reach an angle imperceptible to us, creating this horizon.
What would you see? If they just "vanish" at 5 miles - what do we see on a clear day when we can see 10 miles? If they shrank to a point and then carried on as a thin line, then all of our view of the world would be a triangle with some kind of gap either side of the tracks at the horizon. If they crossed over...wow...would that be a mind-bending trip!They would reach a point where your frame of view shrinks into a dot beyond your perceivable angles of vision, you can't visualize beyond that from your standpoint, if that changed, so would the horizon line and point of convergence.
uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things?Light, your eyes, and aperture. Basic.
How do the eye works?You asked how our vision works in response to my claim of how our vision is limited. This isn't biology we are discussing here, take that somewhere else.
I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.We don't, there you go making up nonsense about how what I'm saying connects to other things and something I supposedly refuse along with another group.
Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things?Light, your eyes, and aperture. Basic.
It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.QuoteHow do the eye works?You asked how our vision works in response to my claim of how our vision is limited. This isn't biology we are discussing here, take that somewhere else.
did you make my exercise for the reader? :PQuoteI've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.We don't, there you go making up nonsense about how what I'm saying connects to other things and something I supposedly refuse along with another group.
draw the side, top and resulting perspective view of a room with a lamp hanging from the ceiling at a 2 m height, 4 m away from the observer.I forgot the front view, but it's the same.
how, pray tell, does our vision works?It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point. As frames shrink, they reach a point of convergence as seen by our perception. This is fundamental, there isn't magical non-intersecting lines angled at a compressed frame where apparent distances converge, they do intersect due to the fact that our field of vision shrinks to an imperceptible angular distance, that's a point from our perspective, the point of convergence. The video here got that right, and the OP brings nonsensical gobblygook to run it over, and fails.
(Picture removed)
It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.
P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.
P1. Cameras without lenses experience perspective
C. Perspective is not a lens phenomenon
QuoteNow he's just made another mistake. The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png)
Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
QuoteNow he's just made another mistake. The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.
https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png
Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
This also demonstrates that this model fails to account for the constant angular speed of the sun. Note that the sun is moving about 22 degrees per interval at the top, and it's down to about 10 by the end. And that's with the error pointed out that the visual distance would shrink due to perspective - if this represented how perspective actually works it would be EVEN WORSE.
The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.
QuoteNow he's just made another mistake. The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.
https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png
Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
This also demonstrates that this model fails to account for the constant angular speed of the sun. Note that the sun is moving about 22 degrees per interval at the top, and it's down to about 10 by the end. And that's with the error pointed out that the visual distance would shrink due to perspective - if this represented how perspective actually works it would be EVEN WORSE.
The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.
That was addressed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.msg126699#msg126699) on page 1.
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:QuoteFinally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective4.png)
The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".
Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.
Therefore, if the sun is sufficiently far away to where the vertical planks are merged together, the distance the sun has to travel between states becomes constant. The horizontal dividers of different perceived lengths between the vertical planks that hold them together no longer exist.
The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance (what is basically seen in the above picture).
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.
In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.
Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?I don't necessarily accept that but am willing to grant it for this case, since light can travel in straight lines and what I'm saying here be correct.
It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.Not to perspective, I don't need to explain the biology of the eye to explain perspective lines, or that eyes have aperture like a lens.
How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.
You SEE with your eyes that the two lines obviously meet - not very far (it seems) beyond the limits of the camera's lens or our visual acuity. You never actually DO see the tracks meeting - but you presume that they must because you can draw the two lines on top of the photo - and it looks like they meet somewhere just fractionally beyond the resolution of the camera.The limits of our visual acuity is the vanishing point. You said that we can perceive the distance between railroad tracks forever, but we can't, they converge at our angular resolution limit because we can't distinguish distances between points beyond that point, angles smaller than we can visualize.
So you conclude that parallel lines meet at some distance from the eye like maybe 10 miles or 100 miles or something...and base all of FET's optical properties on this, seemingly reasonable, claim.That's our perspective indeed.
Now, let's talk about the building on the left. You can draw a line at roof level and another one at ground level and see that they intersect...but what you're claiming is that this intersection is happening at some distance from us - 10 miles, 100 miles - whatever. I'm claiming that...yes, the lines obviously intersect - but the DISTANCE at which they intersect is infinite.Which means they never intersect, because infinity has no distance.
Now I hear you complaining.About your flawed model of human perspective, indeed.
But look CAREFULLY at them in the picture. Do you see that the separation between the columns in the photograph is smaller in the distance than it is near to the camera?Yes, that's quite clear with our perception of far away distances.
So here is what's happening. The closer together the roof line and the pavement line get - the more and more compressed the distance INTO the scene the picture becomes. The horizontal spacing between columns get smaller and smaller.This is correct, and my point deals exactly with this.
So when the roof/pavement lines would be VERY close to touching, they'd be representing something a billion miles into the scene - and at the precise point where the "perspective lines" touch - we are INFINITELY far into the scene.Geometric lines, yes. They would have to more and more shallow and will be 0 at infinity, which is never. This assumes we have infinite aperture, which we don't, our perspective appears to intersect when distances become indistinguishable from a point.
X, Y and Z are *ALL* shrinking as we go further into the distance.Except our perspective lines of our vision aren't parallel.
So when the X or Y distance hits zero - so the Z spacings of our columns ALSO hits zero - and you get an infinite number of columns packed together into that last screen pixel as we approach the vanishing point.
An THAT is why parallel lines meet at INFINITE Z and not 10 miles or 100 miles as FE'ers seem to believe.
I can quite understand why this fooled you - and I have to say that it hurts my brain even thinking about it. But regardless - this is what truly happens.We aren't being fooled here, it's just you misunderstanding human perspective and applying it to geometric lines.
x' = k.x / zThat's not perspective. Perspective would be the point which the distances between rails become unresolvable from a point.
y' = k.y / z
(x,y,z) is a point in the real/virtual world (in a coordinate system where the "camera" is at (0,0,0) and z is distance away from the camera).
(x', y') is the point on the screen where that point ends up (in a coordinate system where the center of the screen is (0,0)).
k is a constant that relates to the 'lens' of the virtual camera and the size/resolution of the screen.
These two equations are built into every 3D computer game - every simulation, every CGI movie. It's so fundamental that it's even built into the hardware of 3D graphics cards in your PC.
We do this because it's the only formula that produces realistic pictures.
So if one railroad rail is 1 meter to the right of the camera (x=+1) - then at what value of 'z' does it arrive at the vanishing point?
x' = 0
x = +1
What is 'z'?
0 = k . 1 / z
z = k / 0
...hmmm - that's a problem because you can't divide by zero without getting an infinity for 'z'.
And that's the mathematical reason why parallel lines meet at infinity under perspective.
The height of the image is the height of the subject (the tree) multiplied by the distance from the pinhole from the film and divided by the distance to the subject (the tree).You make the mistake here as well. If I draw a straight line at an angle from an object at X height above the ground to the ground (where the the distance between objects to have a geometric vanishing point as you describe), it will always be at an angle above the ground unless the lines are parallel (which would mean infinite distance), so you conclude that the point of convergence or the horizon is at infinity. However, if this were true, then perspective lines could never approach each other, but they do, they would have to be parallel, which they aren't. This tears apart your flawed perspective model that doesn't work in reality.
The only way to discount this derivation of the math for perspective is to deny that light travels in straight lines - or to deny that the method of similar triangles is valid.Actually, all I need to claim is that optics always have finite aperture for perceiving angular distance, and then what you claim is false when brought up against reality. Optics do always have finite aperture, therefore you are incorrect/
So the pinhole camera is proof of the equations - and the equations are proof of the laws of perspective.No they aren't, they fail to represent perspective lines in reality, and so don't relate to perspective at all.
The observation that perspective operates in Z as well as in X and Y is further proof that FET's concept of finite vanishing points is untrue.
I think this argument is completely watertight - and so far, nobody in FE land has been willing to even discuss it. Tom just says "it's just a diagram"...which is a rather fundamentalist anti-science, anti-math position - and if he were honest and consistent then he'd have to call "bullshit" on all of Rowbothams diagrams too!A diagram of geometric lines isn't gonna represent the variable of human perspective limitations.
To see if I understand properly, it sounds like you are saying that the change in angular velocity of an object as it passes has to do with the distance from the observer. This means that something farther away will have less change in angular velocity, until at some distance (say, 3000 miles), the change in angular velocity goes to zero. Is that correct?Yes, the vertical perspective lines to the sky converge to where the angular distances between meet across to your horizon.
No - they never "merge together" - that would happen only at infinity...which is OK in my view of perspective - but if your claim for perspective shrinking things to zero size only happens at 10 miles or whatever - then no - they have not "merged together".They never claimed it was at a nearby distance of 10 miles. Also, no, perspective lines meeting at infinity doesn't match reality, as I have pointed out. Perspective lines are not parallel, they are convergent. The horizon could only be a finite distance in human perspective.
But that can only happen at infinity - and the FE sun doesn't get to infinity...which is why it can never "set".
Yeah - exactly. The angle from your eye to the Cessna changes REALLY quickly when it's overhead and slows down to a barely perceptible angular change as it goes off into the distance.It couldn't descend at a more constant rate by what you said, where vertical lines appear closer and closer together at farther distances regardless of object height. However, your model doesn't take the converging angular distances into account but assumes they never meet like parallel lines.
You FE sun would do the exact same thing. It would track across the sky at crazy high speeds when overhead - and slow down to a crawl later in the day.Already addressed in that post by Tom:
Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.At higher altitudes, the vertical lines become more consistent in apparent distances.
BUT THIS ISN'T WHAT THE SUN REALLY DOES. A simple measurement of the sun angle at regular intervals shows that it crosses the sky at a CONSTANT angular rate of around 15 degrees per hour.Yeah, and it would do that with a high sun descending due to perspective on a flat plane.
The Flat Earth sun wouldn't do that - it would be maybe 30 degrees per hour when overhead and slow down to one or two degrees per hour in late afternoon.From our perspective the horizon, the vertical 'planks' out in the distance converge to the same apparent angular distance as directly above, it gradually does at farther distances and the sun does it since it is beyond that point of convergence of vertical lines, and so descends constantly.
Your Cessna example is EXACTLY what we're saying your FE sun would do. Since it clearly doesn't do that (and it doesn't change in size like the Cessna does either) - it's CLEARLY going in a circle around us.The sun does descend at a constant rate like the Cessna does to a larger extent at it's altitude, as you have pointed out.
Put this way: If an object remains at the same size no matter what (true of Sun, moon, planets, comets and stars) then even with your "magic perspective" it cannot be changing in distance.
If it's tracking across the sky at a constant angular rate of 15 degrees per hour and not changing distance - then it MUST be moving in a circle...not sliding along a horizontal plane as FET would have us believe.And as explained already, it's high altitude would render it at a constant descent due to converging angular distances of vertical perspective lines.
So the only way you have out of this mess is to declare yet ANOTHER property of magic perspective.It is not another new 'property', it has been known in basic perspective that perspective lines converge and aren't parallel.
* Magic perspective causes the sun to appear to be on the horizon.Perpsective lines meet at a horizon, that forms the horizon.
* Magic perspective causes parallel lines to meet at the horizon.Perspective lines aren't parallel, that's quite obvious in art.
* Magic perspective explains why the sizes of sun, moon, etc never change with distance.It says no such thing, there isn't a breach of angular diameter here. Look into the FE views on the Sun.
Basically, so long as you never let yourself be tied down as to the actual path of photons through space - you'll continue to pile more and more unlikely properties into this vague "magic perspective" rabbit hole and hope we never find an inconsistency.The path of photons into our eyes is limited by our perspective due to limited aperture, we can't perceive infinite light to see every angular distance distinction.
I suppose it's your best strategy - vagueness is definitely your best defense these days.They aren't being vague here, it is a basic deducible concept.
If the jet was 10 times higher than the cessna and moving at 10 times the speed - and they were both overhead at the exact same instant and travelling in the exact same direction - then they'd appear to be in the same spot in your field of view.This misses the point that vertical perspective lines meet at a high altitude and farther up to that point, the apparent angular distances between the vertical perspective lines become more similar since it is all viewed from you to the horizon and up. This implies a more constant descent of higher altitude moving objects.
The rate of change of angle would be the same for the jet as for the cessna...the law of similar triangles (or simple trigonometry) proves that.Which is wrong for our perspective of high and moving objects and disproven by the fact that apparent angular distances recede at distances even with vertical lines and looking up.
Go learn some high-school geometry...or draw a diagram if you don't believe me...I really can't be bothered to teach you basic math skills today.They don't need to, you just keep missing the point.
That simply doesn't work. So you're saying that once they are BEYOND the vanishing point...what exactly happens?They disappear from our line of sight.
You know you're REALLY going to have to tell us where the photons go in these circumstances.They may vary by other conditions but as interpreted by the limited aperture of your eyes, angular distances are indistinguishable after a finite distance, represented by convergent perspective lines.
If the jet was 10 times higher than the cessna and moving at 10 times the speed - and they were both overhead at the exact same instant and travelling in the exact same direction - then they'd appear to be in the same spot in your field of view. The rate of change of angle would be the same for the jet as for the cessna...the law of similar triangles (or simple trigonometry) proves that.
Hey Super, can you explain to me how a low cloud can cast a shadow on a cloud higher in the sky around sunrise/sunset? For that to happen, the light source has to actually be below the level of the lowest cloud.That is not relevant to the topic here (I frankly don't want to continue a conversation in the wrong thread), make a thread on it or point to me one to discuss it if you care to.
You SEE with your eyes that the two lines obviously meet - not very far (it seems) beyond the limits of the camera's lens or our visual acuity. You never actually DO see the tracks meeting - but you presume that they must because you can draw the two lines on top of the photo - and it looks like they meet somewhere just fractionally beyond the resolution of the camera.The limits of our visual acuity is the vanishing point. You said that we can perceive the distance between railroad tracks forever, but we can't, they converge at our angular resolution limit because we can't distinguish distances between points beyond that point, angles smaller than we can visualize.
How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.
It's ANGLES smaller than we can visualize, so the distance to the vanishing point depends on the size of the object or the distance between the perspective lines.The distance between perspective lines at the line of sight decreases away from it not just straight out but out to the side as well. So, the apparent distances between perspective lines decrease as they are farther from our sight, so the perspectives lines appear to angle more when out of your line of sight to the horizon point within your line of sight. This means your field of vision as a frame shrinks to a point of convergence.
So if something is large enough, we can see it at an arbitrarily large distance, no?Yes, if it is a relatively large object like the sun, it can be seen in the sky a far distance. It also meets the horizon line which is the vertical angle of view, and the horizon is formed at an imperceptible angle.
They are the same thing:How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.
Except I asked about intersecting, not converging. It is obvious that lines converge at the vanishing point. What is not obvious is when they intersect.
Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?I don't necessarily accept that but am willing to grant it for this case, since light can travel in straight lines and what I'm saying here be correct.
see, that's where you are wrong. Aperture is not the only relevant thing. Lights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.QuoteIt's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.Not to perspective, I don't need to explain the biology of the eye to explain perspective lines, or that eyes have aperture like a lens.
Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.Why? I don't see the relevance of bringing in a specific distance and height of objects and plotting a diagram of them. With the topic, we are talking about perspective and it working at distances and you want to bring in a specific dimension diagram of objects at a distance.
Aperture is not the only relevant thing.
Lights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.Correct, the horizon is when the perspective lines approach each other at an angle we can't perceive, it's an illusion of perspective.
The sun, in your model, is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles up.Who said my model? I'd be willing to entertain that the sun is at these dimensions but not claiming it must be and is not relevant to my point.
That's a ~20° angle of incidence. You have plenty resolution to see it up in the sky. Basic perspective.Only, the sun's height line of descent would be steeper due to its vertical distance from our line of sight and so descends to meet the imperceptible angle at a larger angle. Think of a rail at a relatively far horizontal distance from your line of sight to convergence, the angle it reaches the point of convergence is larger due to its longer deviation from our line of sight. The same happens with the sun, it meets the horizon at the top of our uniform frame, where our entire field of vision converges. The top of that frame would be the steepest descent into the horizon. Higher objects move farther before reaching the same apparent horizon, which means they descend at a steeper angle, which is in proportion with a farther actual distance.
End of the story.Hardly, an excuse to be able to forget it all won't work.
you know, applying your model to an actual distance is the only way to ascertain whether it is correct or not.Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.Why? I don't see the relevance of bringing in a specific distance and height of objects and plotting a diagram of them. With the topic, we are talking about perspective and it working at distances and you want to bring in a specific dimension diagram of objects at a distance.
the reason why we can't perceive every angle is exactly what I've explained about the density of the receptors.QuoteAperture is not the only relevant thing.
What a way to criticize what I'm saying, that aperture is all that's relevant to perspective (I didn't imply it was all there is). You people completely ignored it and assumed all angles are visible to the eye since light is in straight lines and missed that we can't perceive every angle due to limitations of aperture and perspective angles to which we perceive as a horizon and point of convergence.
and this is where you stopped making sense, i'm sorry. Why should the sun be perceived differently from anything else? Suddenly you feel the need to change the methodology and come up with a different kind of perspective, where light stops working as it should, and the angles of incidence don't hold anymore. Please draw that diagram. If you don't believe me, do the reverse calculation. Look at what distance the sun should be from you, to be at a small enough angle to be near the vanishing point.QuoteLights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.Correct, the horizon is when the perspective lines approach each other at an angle we can't perceive, it's an illusion of perspective.
Farther perspective lines will converge steeper due to them being at a greater horizontal distance from our line of sight.QuoteThe sun, in your model, is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles up.Who said my model? I'd be willing to entertain that the sun is at these dimensions but not claiming it must be and is not relevant to my point.QuoteThat's a ~20° angle of incidence. You have plenty resolution to see it up in the sky. Basic perspective.Only, the sun's height line of descent would be steeper due to its vertical distance from our line of sight and so descends to meet the imperceptible angle at a larger angle. Think of a rail at a relatively far horizontal distance from your line of sight to convergence, the angle it reaches the point of convergence is larger due to its longer deviation from our line of sight. The same happens with the sun, it meets the horizon at the top of our uniform frame, where our entire field of vision converges. The top of that frame would be the steepest descent into the horizon. Higher objects will appear to move farther before reaching the same apparent horizon, which means they descend at a steeper angle proportion with a farther actual distance.
All objects will descend into our horizon line, which is from an imperceptible angle of view, by angling into it with accordance to altitude.
Incorrect, not all converging lines intersect and intersecting lines are no longer converging, they have converged.They are the same thing:How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.
Except I asked about intersecting, not converging. It is obvious that lines converge at the vanishing point. What is not obvious is when they intersect.
(Picture clipped)
When lines intersect, they are converging.
You asked how I distinguish between intersecting lines and the lacking of the visual acuity perceiving distances between two points
The answer is that the point where we lack the ability to distinguish between distances is the point of convergence. 'No distance' can only be represented by a point.
How far away (when viewed from the side) would something 3,000 miles long need to be for it to appear as a single point in the distance?to be pedant, the question is not well posed... the human eye can resolve I believe ~0,02° so to the naked eye it should be I dunno a few million miles away? You do the math, it's late here ;D
Right. The reason I asked is because if the sun is 3,000 miles high, it would need to be over 240,000 miles away to appear a distance above the horizon that even comes close to being equal to the size of the moon (since you provided the specs on the moon, I'll just use that).How far away (when viewed from the side) would something 3,000 miles long need to be for it to appear as a single point in the distance?to be pedant, the question is not well posed... the human eye can resolve I believe ~0,02° so to the naked eye it should be I dunno a few million miles away? You do the math, it's late here ;D
But if you use a telescope you'll push it farther away
EDIT: I mean, by way of comparison, and I know it might not fly well in here, the moon is ~2000 miles wide, and ~240.000 miles away, and you still see it quite clearly
Right. The reason I asked is because if the sun is 3,000 miles high, it would need to be over 240,000 miles away to appear a distance above the horizon that even comes close to being equal to the size of the moon (since you provided the specs on the moon, I'll just use that).precisely. I realized later that that 3000 figure wasn't random ;D
We're left with the sun and moon physically getting lower, or perspective causing the light to curve.
Right. The reason I asked is because if the sun is 3,000 miles high, it would need to be over 240,000 miles away to appear a distance above the horizon that even comes close to being equal to the size of the moon (since you provided the specs on the moon, I'll just use that).precisely. I realized later that that 3000 figure wasn't random ;D
We're left with the sun and moon physically getting lower, or perspective causing the light to curve.
Anyway that's the point. If you accept that light travels in straight lines, then it's basic geometry. I tried using an online trig calculator, because i'm lazy, and to have 3000 miles within a 0,02° angle the result was above 8 million miles. I won't bet my life on the figure being correct, but it looks reasonable to me.
Of course it's out of wack with reality, but that doesn't seem to have ever given pause to the good folks here ;D