9421

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 05:42:33 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

How can the dime obstruct your view of the elephant if the dime is too small to see and below your eye level?

For the first point, the dime may be too small to see, but it is still going to block light rays. Consider a tower on the horizon. Although the bricks which make up the tower are too small to see, they are still each undeniably blocking the light of the things behind it.

For the second point, perspective places things at the horizon on your eye level.

Consider: Imagine we are on a very large dirt plane. We are 5 feet 10 inches tall. We look directly 90 degrees ahead at the horizon and see a dirt line. How can we see dirt at our eye level if we know that the dirt is 5 feet 10 inches below us?

From Chapter 5 of The Perspective Handbook by Joseph D'Amelio we read:

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level.

It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.

In an editorial from the London Journal, July 18, 1857, one journalist describes the following from a hot-air balloon ascent:

The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary.

During the rapid ascent in the balloon the author saw new and distant lands reveal themselves from the stationary horizon. His perspective lines were constantly changing, revealing additional lands, while the horizon line remained stationary at eye level.

It could be argued that this should not have happened if the earth were a globe. The horizon should have been seen to drop rather than remain stationary.

If you believe that the horizon is below eye level, that will need to be demonstrated, as experience in nature suggests otherwise.

9422

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 04:28:34 PM »

The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds.

Oh, so then the dime isn't necessarily on the horizon or at eye level?  Thanks for clearing that up.

How does that follow from what you quoted?

Well, on the one hand, the perspective vanishing point is always on the horizon which is always very far away.  On the other hand, small things can become too small to see (vanish) long before they reach the horizon.

Regardless if you can see it clearly, it's still going to obscure light rays from the elephant. It is a physical obstruction.

9423

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 04:23:08 PM »

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

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

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

9424

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 04:13:16 PM »

The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds.

Oh, so then the dime isn't necessarily on the horizon or at eye level?  Thanks for clearing that up.

How does that follow from what you quoted?

9425

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 03:25:10 PM »

Ok  so everything vanishes,  and the dime can in fact obscure the elephant,  provided the elephant as close to vanishing already,   what happens when I look through a telescope,  I'm no longer limited to 1 arc second minute.   Are the elephants still hidden?

It depends. Looking through a telescope will change your perspective lines and create new vanishing points.

In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham was able to look into a telescope across lakes and reverse the sinking effect. When done on the ocean the sinking effect was unable to be reversed, presumably because the disturbances on the surface whete the new vanishing point lay were still too great for the telescope to overcome.

9426

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 03:00:38 PM »

Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?

This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:

The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer

So you put the dime at the vanishing point?  Why would you do that?

The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.

It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.

The reason the horizon appears to rise to eye level is that we can't perceive the curvature between ourselves and the horizon,  just as we can't perceive the curvature of the horizon in the left/right direction,   you don't perceive the horizon to be lower until you get to the altitude where the left/right curvature starts to become visible.   

So,  at low altitudes where "the horizon rises to eye level"   there will be some point where the dime can be placed to obscure anything you like,  the question that is harder to answer is where that position is,   It can't be the vanishing point,  since the dime itself would vanish,  it can't be at ground level for any reasonable distance, since the sight line to the vanishing point would be over the top of the dime.   It would have to be close and positioned about eye level to obscure the distant elephant.   No question that  distant objects can be obscured by higher objects in the foreground,  the question is does the geometry make sense.   A better diagram might help.

The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds. However, emperically, the dime is still there to block light rays and cast "shadows" behind it, as I have described, regardless if you can readily see it or not.

9427

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 02:43:56 PM »

Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?

This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:

The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer

So you put the dime at the vanishing point?  Why would you do that?

And where is the Earth in your diagram? The elephants appear to be flying.

The elephants are on their own perspective lines in relation to the observer, which causes them to shrink into the horizon abyss at a slightly slower pace. Go back to the high plane/low plane analogy. Multiple vanishing points, height dependant, all meeting at the horizon.

As to what their perspective lines would look like, they would look very similar to the perspective lines drawn for the dime, except with a slightly more acute angle.

As per the flat ground, the ground has its own perspective lines that are independent of even the dime, intersecting with eye level slightly to the left of it, and is unillustrated. What is seen are perspective lines of the dime.

9428

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 02:37:25 PM »

Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?

This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:

The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer

So you put the dime at the vanishing point?  Why would you do that?

The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.

It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.

9429

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 08:43:02 AM »

Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?

This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:

The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer

The blue lines radiating away from the dime are the dime's shadow, that is, the dime's size in comparison to the elephant. Once the dime and the elephant are sufficiently separated, the dime will obscure the elephant, just as you can obscure a nearby elephant with a dime by holding it out in front of you with your arm.



The analogy that the dime's image casts a shadow upon all bodies beyond it is apt. The image of the dime radiates outwards, just as a shadow does, growing with distance. We do not see a black shadow on the elephant because, if you are in a room with a light source behind us and hold out and align a dime perfectly with your eye, you will not see its shadow on the wall, just the dime. And if we bring the dime closer or further from our face we can obscure more or reveal more, making the shadow bigger or smaller, illustrating that the image grows and radiates outwards.

Per straight light rays, consider: You are standing in a room and hold out a dime in front of your face, entirely obscuring a television on the wall. How could the television be obscured if the television is much larger than a dime and light travels in straight lines? The answer, of course, is that the image of the dime radiates outwards with distance, via natural laws of perspective, allowing it to obscure televisions and elephants. None of it is to say that the light from the television is not traveling straight, but the dime is just aligned with the eye and obscuring it. Going reverse from television to dime, in assessment of the path of light, the operation is simple: If there is something obscuring the eye, the light will be obscured.

The operation from eye to dime to elephant is actually also simple: If there is something obscuring the elephant, the elephant will be obscured. But considering that this seems difficult to comprehend, this is neither here nor there.

9430

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 02:28:09 AM »

Not if the dime is on the ground. If you are going to make the argument, you should know how the optics work at least.

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

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

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

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

9431

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 12, 2015, 08:56:51 PM »

This hypotesis works, as you have explained, with objects like trees that can be covered thanks to perspective by smaller objects (the box). But, where I live (North Italy) there are some cliffs in the middle of a lot plains, full of wheat/rice fields. So there aren't any interferences (only little buildings in the middle of nowhere. But still When I go there I still see first the top and then the base. How do you explain this?

Is North Italy perfectly and geometrically flat, whereby not even an inch of soil rises above the plane for further bodies to shrink behind?

Bodies cannot shrink behind an inch of soil unless they are less than an inch high. If you believe otherwise, you should be able to draw a simple diagram of optical lines to demonstrate it. As it stands your assertion supported by a strange set of diagrams do nothing to demonstrate your position.

What makes you think that a body would need to be an inch in height, or less, to disappear behind a inch of soil?

Did you know that it is possible to obscure an elephant with a dime?

9432

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Baumgartner

« on: July 12, 2015, 06:56:00 PM »

Fish eye lense does not equal round Earth.  Nothing there proves anything but a fisheye lense.

Let me make this clear. It's actually very easy to verify curvature even on a fish-eye lens capture.

Pause the video on a frame where the horizon is in a horizontal position on screen, and exactly at the middle of the screen (at the midpoint of the vertical axis). Now look at the horizon. If it's curved on the frame, it's curved in reality. A straight line would appear as a straight line in a fish-eyed frame, if it's horizontal or vertical and in the middle.

Do you honestly believe that they did not use fish-eye lenses?  Look at this picture taken from ground level.  Clearly, the cameras are distorting the horizon.



Not all of the cameras had this type of lens, however.  Here is one that shows a fairly flat horizon.

9433

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 12, 2015, 05:32:11 PM »

This hypotesis works, as you have explained, with objects like trees that can be covered thanks to perspective by smaller objects (the box). But, where I live (North Italy) there are some cliffs in the middle of a lot plains, full of wheat/rice fields. So there aren't any interferences (only little buildings in the middle of nowhere. But still When I go there I still see first the top and then the base. How do you explain this?

Is North Italy perfectly and geometrically flat, whereby not even an inch of soil rises above the plane for further bodies to shrink behind?

9434

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 12, 2015, 12:55:37 AM »

There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.

Oh wow, ok, what part is the imperfection?

The wooden crate.

9435

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 12, 2015, 12:28:34 AM »

There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.

9436

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 11, 2015, 11:34:44 PM »

and also, in simple words, how do tides work?

The tides are discussed in Chapter 12 of Earth Not a Globe.

9437

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 11, 2015, 11:20:31 PM »

The mountain is shrinking by perspective behind any imperfections in the earth's surface.

9438

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: July 11, 2015, 03:25:09 PM »

That's enough.

9439

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect

« on: July 11, 2015, 03:22:48 PM »

The rotating celestial systems above our heads have a slight gravitational pull.

9440

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking For Quotes

« on: July 11, 2015, 03:18:53 PM »

How could someone publish a study showing evidence for a Flat Earth without it leading to the conclusion that the earth may be flat?