The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2018, 05:40:23 PM
-
As an explanation for the Southern Stars in the classic Monopole model, I am growing to be more in favor of P-Brane's explanation of perspective for how the Southern Stars rotate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE&t=6s
-
P-Brane describes how one would see the Southern Stars rotate. The model P-Brane describes still seems a bit hazy on how people living on opposite sides of the Monopole world can see the South Pole star, Sigma Octantis, at the same time, however. But what evidence is there that they have seen it at the exact same time?
As an addendum to his video, perhaps Sigma Octantis is on the dark side of the earth opposite of the sun. Sigma Octantis may also be the brightest star that is the furthest out on the star disk. It is always on the opposite side of the sun, moving in the same 24 hour period, so it is always in night. Since it is the furthest out on the star disk, it appears in the middle of the rotation due to the perspective explanation P-Brane describes in the video.
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
-
What evidence is there that crepuscular rays rotate in the direction indicated by P-Brane?
As seen here, these rays from this sunset (that would be facing West) are rotating from North to South (a.k.a right to left or counter-clockwise), not South to North (a.k.a left to right or clockwise) as seen in the P-Brane video at 4:37-4:41:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOzEtT3pLg8
The crepuscular rays rotate in the opposite direction than what is depicted in the P-Brane video. This claim is supported by the above video.
One can easily see (by running the P-Brane video backwards) that this would cause the stars to also rotate in the opposite direction. Let's call this the 'Corrected P-Brane Model'. This claim is supported by running the P-Brane video in reverse.
P-Brane appears mistaken about the direction these crepuscular rays rotate in and it appears that if the actual direction is used it would cause the star field to rotate in the opposite direction of what is observed.
Nobody should accept a conjecture that is not supported by the observable data. In this case the observation being that crepuscular rays rotate counter-clockwise at sunset, not clockwise as claimed by P-Brane. And the direction of the star fields rotation is opposite of what the 'Corrected P-Brane Model' indicates.
Additionally, from the P-Brane video at 8:39, it appears to fix Sigma Octantis in a stationary position almost directly over the South Pole, but does not explain how a compass reading taken from it from Rio, Brazil and Gaborone, Botswana would both read 180 degree (South) [the reading from Botswana was verified with a compass, Rio was eyeballed as due South, but definitely not SSE]. As we can see, the direction to this star should be vastly different between these locations.
-
The rays do seem to rotate counterclockwise like in your video. Checkout the video at 3:26. (https://youtu.be/t30-YbayyXE?t=3m26s)
(https://i.imgur.com/J8lKIVN.png)
However, I don't think it really matters which way the rays are turning. I don't think P-Brane is proposing that the rotation or movement of the sun around the earth influences the direction the rays are turning. I believe that the rays are rotating entirely based on the direction clouds in the foreground are moving. The rays can turn clockwise or counterclockwise, based entirely on the movement of those clouds.
The point of it is that if the rays are moving one way in the East, it could turn the opposite way in the West. P-Brane also creates a small model out of cardboard and paper to demonstrate the idea further in the video.
-
They do seem to rotate counterclockwise like in your video. Checkout the video at 3:26. (https://youtu.be/t30-YbayyXE?t=3m26s)
(https://i.imgur.com/J8lKIVN.png)
However, I don't think it really matters which way the rays are turning. I don't think P-Brane is proposing that the rotation or movement of the sun around the earth influences the direction the rays are turning. I believe that the rays are rotating entirely based on the direction clouds in the foreground are moving. The rays can turn clockwise or counterclockwise, based entirely on the movement of those clouds.
The point of it is that if the rays are moving one way in the East, it could turn the opposite way in the West. P-Brane also creates a small model our of cardboard and paper to demonstrate the idea further in the video.
Wait, isn't it perspective that's causing this? Isn't it also perspective that causes the sun to set? The second of which requires the perspective effect to function differently at long distances than it does at short? So how does his cardboard model do anything to help? If it can successfully reproduce the effect at a smaller scale, it either A) Isn't a result of perspective in the FE hypothesis, so you need to explain it another way or B) He's just debunked your hypothesis on perspective that allows the sun to set or C) [fill in the blank please as I don't see a third option].
-
They do seem to rotate counterclockwise like in your video. Checkout the video at 3:26. (https://youtu.be/t30-YbayyXE?t=3m26s)
(https://i.imgur.com/J8lKIVN.png)
However, I don't think it really matters which way the rays are turning. I don't think P-Brane is proposing that the rotation or movement of the sun around the earth influences the direction the rays are turning. I believe that the rays are rotating entirely based on the direction clouds in the foreground are moving. The rays can turn clockwise or counterclockwise, based entirely on the movement of those clouds.
The point of it is that if the rays are moving one way in the East, it could turn the opposite way in the West. P-Brane also creates a small model our of cardboard and paper to demonstrate the idea further in the video.
Wait, isn't it perspective that's causing this? Isn't it also perspective that causes the sun to set? The second of which requires the perspective effect to function differently at long distances than it does at short? So how does his cardboard model do anything to help? If it can successfully reproduce the effect at a smaller scale, it either A) Isn't a result of perspective in the FE hypothesis, so you need to explain it another way or B) He's just debunked your hypothesis on perspective that allows the sun to set or C) [fill in the blank please as I don't see a third option].
The cardboard mockup is just a demonstration on how something spinning in one physical direction can appear to rotate in opposite directions depending on how you look at it.
The same reverse-rotation phenomenon can also seen with a spinning chair. Spin counterclockwise in your chair and look up. If you assume that you are inert, you will see your ceiling spinning counterclockwise. Now look down at the floor. If you assume that you are inert, you will see the floor spinning clockwise.
-
Tom, do you realize that if something is moving in circles above your head, it looks like its trajectory actually follows more of an oval shape when seen from a distance?
-
Tom, do you realize that if something is moving in circles above your head, it looks like its trajectory actually follows more of an oval shape when seen from a distance?
You are right. Those oval dimensions would occur under the Ancient Greek idea that you could see into infinity. In Earth Not a Globe, and in P-Brane's videos, the nature of perspective is finite, however.
Overhead receding bodies move across the sky with more consistency as they increase their altitudes. A very low flying plane that flies overhead seems to move faster when directly overhead and then slower in the distance, while a very high flying plane that flies overhead moves with more consistency into the distance.
The sun and stars are at such an altitude that they max out their downward perspective line angles into the earth, are moving consistently, or nearly so. This is why the sun doesn't slow down as it approaches the horizon and why the stars don't build up at the horizon. This would also cause the spinning of the celestial disk to appear circular instead of an oval. Here is an article on our wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun) that tries to explain the idea in general. I do think that we need a rewrite of this page to make the idea a little more clear, but it is a start.
-
Which monopole map do these observations apply to?
-
The rays do seem to rotate counterclockwise like in your video. Checkout the video at 3:26. (https://youtu.be/t30-YbayyXE?t=3m26s)
(https://i.imgur.com/J8lKIVN.png)
However, I don't think it really matters which way the rays are turning. I don't think P-Brane is proposing that the rotation or movement of the sun around the earth influences the direction the rays are turning. I believe that the rays are rotating entirely based on the direction clouds in the foreground are moving. The rays can turn clockwise or counterclockwise, based entirely on the movement of those clouds.
The point of it is that if the rays are moving one way in the East, it could turn the opposite way in the West. P-Brane also creates a small model out of cardboard and paper to demonstrate the idea further in the video.
That shows them rotating counterclockwise when facing EAST. The Sun sets in the WEST, the video I provided shows them rotating counterclockwise while facing WEST. If we turned around, like P-Brane does with the cardboard tube in his video, they would be rotating clockwise in the EAST. This is the opposite of everything P-Brane claim.
But most importantly we've agreed that Crepuscular rays (and anti-crepuscular rays) of the Sun and their rotation are caused by the clouds, the clouds determine the direction they move in, and the wind determines the direction clouds move in. If you reverse the direction of the wind and the rays rotate the other way, everything in P-Brane's video runs in the reverse direction.
The stars direction of rotation never reverses, they always rotate in a consistent direction (based on what side of the Equator you're on). This means the star field rotation isn't based on the clouds and what direction the wind is blowing, and since we agree that crepuscular rays (and anti-crepuscular rays) are caused by clouds and wind, we can conclude that star field rotation is not related to crepuscular ray rotation. In order to be related, the star field direction of rotation would need to based on the clouds and wind direction, which would cause them to rotate in the opposite direction as well.
Additionally, we can see in the title shot of the video, there's not a cloud in the sky and the star field rotated. This implies something is actually rotating, not just appearing to rotate because clouds are passing by.
As you noted (and the model appears to show):
[that] perhaps Sigma Octantis is on the dark side of the earth opposite of the sun. Sigma Octantis may also be the brightest star that is the furthest out on the star disk. It is always on the opposite side of the sun, moving in the same 24 hour period, so it is always in night. Since it is the furthest out on the star disk, it appears in the middle of the rotation due to the perspective explanation P-Brane describes in the video.
AND
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
Could you explain how a single point can appear stationary while also sweeping across the nighttime half of the Earth (and be almost exactly South of everywhere) at the same time?
How is it that this star, being furthest out on the disk and possessing the highest angular velocity, seems to hang nearly motionless in the sky, just like the star nearest the center (Polaris) and possessing the lowest angular velocity?
When standing on the Equator both stars (SO & P) are equidistant from the observer, so it's almost like your saying the faster something is moving the slower it appears to go?
If the outer most point of the disk rotates on a 24 hour period, how is it that the visible constellations cycle throughout the year?
-
The cardboard mockup is just a demonstration on how something spinning in one physical direction can appear to rotate in opposite directions depending on how you look at it.
The same reverse-rotation phenomenon can also seen with a spinning chair. Spin counterclockwise in your chair and look up. If you assume that you are inert, you will see your ceiling spinning counterclockwise. Now look down at the floor. If you assume that you are inert, you will see the floor spinning clockwise.
Only on flat earth you can't look down at the southern stars, they're always above you (on the ceiling basically).
On flat Earth, according to the P-Brane video, when you spin counterclockwise in your chair and look up, the ceiling will spin counterclockwise until at some point further away from you perspective will cause the ceiling to appear to spin clockwise.
-
That shows them rotating counterclockwise when facing EAST. The Sun sets in the WEST, the video I provided shows them rotating counterclockwise while facing WEST. If we turned around, like P-Brane does with the cardboard tube in his video, they would be rotating clockwise in the EAST. This is the opposite of everything P-Brane claim.
But most importantly we've agreed that Crepuscular rays (and anti-crepuscular rays) of the Sun and their rotation are caused by the clouds, the clouds determine the direction they move in, and the wind determines the direction clouds move in. If you reverse the direction of the wind and the rays rotate the other way, everything in P-Brane's video runs in the reverse direction.
The stars direction of rotation never reverses, they always rotate in a consistent direction (based on what side of the Equator you're on). This means the star field rotation isn't based on the clouds and what direction the wind is blowing, and since we agree that crepuscular rays (and anti-crepuscular rays) are caused by clouds and wind, we can conclude that star field rotation is not related to crepuscular ray rotation. In order to be related, the star field direction of rotation would need to based on the clouds and wind direction, which would cause them to rotate in the opposite direction as well.
Additionally, we can see in the title shot of the video, there's not a cloud in the sky and the star field rotated. This implies something is actually rotating, not just appearing to rotate because clouds are passing by.
P-Brane is not saying that the stars rotate with the same mechanism as the sun's crepuscular rays rotate. The sun's crepuscular rays rotate due to clouds passing by in the foreground. The stars rotate due to a different (unknown) mechanism. He is using the sun's crepuscular rays as an example for how something can seem to be rotating in two different directions.
Spinning in a chair and looking up at the ceiling and then down at the floor also serves as an example for that.
As you noted (and the model appears to show):
[that] perhaps Sigma Octantis is on the dark side of the earth opposite of the sun. Sigma Octantis may also be the brightest star that is the furthest out on the star disk. It is always on the opposite side of the sun, moving in the same 24 hour period, so it is always in night. Since it is the furthest out on the star disk, it appears in the middle of the rotation due to the perspective explanation P-Brane describes in the video.
AND
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
Could you explain how a single point can appear stationary while also sweeping across the nighttime half of the Earth (and be almost exactly South of everywhere) at the same time?
That is because you were taught to imagine the world as in the left side of this image below, which is what the Ancient Greeks taught, what the educational system continues to teach today, and is a wrong interpretation of perspective geometry. We really view the world in accordance to perspective that culminates to a point, as the right side of this overhead image shows:
(https://i.imgur.com/W2gARym.png)
P-Brane explains it more in his videos.
-
Those drawings are wrong. I've been drawing up some images on how perspective ACTUALLY works... If you just picture light entering your eye, being focused on a point, and then spreading again to hit the retina, you should have everything you need to understand perspective.
Drawing lines from the side of someone's head is completely meaningless. Start with the single point inside the eye... Everything you see goes to that point. Therefore as something gets further away, the percentage of the retina which is filled by that image is reduced. Perspective.
Simple stuff. P Brain lives up to his name.
-
Those drawings are wrong. I've been drawing up some images on how perspective ACTUALLY works... If you just picture light entering your eye, being focused on a point, and then spreading again to hit the retina, you should have everything you need to understand perspective.
Drawing lines from the side of someone's head is completely meaningless. Start with the single point inside the eye... Everything you see goes to that point. Therefore as something gets further away, the percentage of the retina which is filled by that image is reduced. Perspective.
Simple stuff. P Brain lives up to his name.
Perspective is how the world presents itself to us, and has nothing to do with your eyeball. Perspective also happens to pinhole cameras which don't have lenses. Things shrink in the distance because the world presents to us that they are shrunken. They are not physically shrunken, but the world presents to us that they are. It has nothing to do with the lenses in your eye to cause the effect.
You are basically arguing that a tiny voracious bear 3 miles in the distance isn't really displayed by the world to you as tiny. It is only your eyeball causing it to be tiny. That is a ridiculous notion on several fronts.
-
Perspective also happens to pinhole cameras which don't have lenses.
but they both have apertures. whether or not they have lenses is irrelevant.
Things shrink in the distance because the world presents to us that they are shrunken. They are not physically shrunken, but the world presents to us that they are. It has nothing to do with the lenses in your eye to cause the effect.
the quantity you're describing is angular size, and it has virtually nothing to do with lenses. it's about apertures. you're acting like angular size is some kind of mystery, but it isn't. we understand perfectly well why things appear smaller with distance.
Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you don't dive into the literature to see what the actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making these rebuttals. Its not like angular size isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.
edit: actually i guess technically angular size isn't about either lenses, or apertures; it's just triangles. but angular resolution is mostly determined by aperture. not precisely the same thing, but same principles.
-
Perspective also happens to pinhole cameras which don't have lenses.
but they both have apertures. whether or not they have lenses is irrelevant.
Things shrink in the distance because the world presents to us that they are shrunken. They are not physically shrunken, but the world presents to us that they are. It has nothing to do with the lenses in your eye to cause the effect.
the quantity you're describing is angular size, and it has virtually nothing to do with lenses.
I was replying to a post which argued that perspective is caused by lenses in the eye that focus things to a point and then sends the image back onto the retina. You are saying that you agree with me that it has nothing to do with lenses? Great.
I was responding to the poster with the notion of "that's clearly not true" and you basically responded with "of course it's not true, read more." Are you trying to tell us something of value or do you just feel the need to disagree in some manner?
Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you don't dive into the literature to see what the actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making these rebuttals. Its not like angular size isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.
Do you agree, then, that the world is presenting a certain angular size to you and that it is not your eye doing it?
What are you disagreeing with me about? You are butting into this thread to condescendingly announce that something tiny has a small angular size. Your post has very little value except to provide spurious definitions to topics in discussion. I expect more from you.
but angular resolution is mostly determined by aperture. not precisely the same thing, but same principles.
Aperture changes the amount of light captured and depth of field for focusing.
(https://i.imgur.com/807s1wx.png)
What does that have to do with this subject?
-
I have just wasted nearly 20 minutes watching the most jumbled explaination of why the stars rotate ets. It is a mixture of half truths, and jumping from one subject, to another with no connection.
OK Crepusculart rays. Even the actual ones in the very short clips he showed, (the “antcrepuscular” ones) not actually truly converge, but they do so in his diagrams, so they are not the same.
Secondly with the anti crepuscular rays the light source is behind your back, ie the sun. You never see the sun again when looking away from it. (This is important)
The light rays from the stars do not cause crepuscular rays, so there is no link between the 2, ie light from stars and crepuscular rays.
When looking at the stars they are in from of you, you are facing them, so the light cannot behave in the same way as anti crepuscular rays which are generated from behind you.
The light from the stars shine directly into your eyes, so there is no bending of the light source to a single point on the horizon. If that were the case then all of the stars if they were in a globe above us at fixed distance would by perspective be one single pinpoint of light.
In the video he makes massive jumps to conclusions that makes the South Pole star steady on the same bearing on the horizon at the same time, which is plainly wrong. What is also does not explain is why the relationship between the stars is the same.
I will give you an example of an actual observation i made last night.
We are in 20S latitude, and at about 19:00 lt, or 11:00Z o saw the constellation of Crux, (southern cross) with Acrux at an altitude of about 20 degrees above the horizon, and the long axis of Crux was about parallel with the horizon, pointing towards the South Pole star. At the same time of the night, in GMT about 11:00 hrs, someone in Fuji, with a similar lattitude, but 60degrees difference in longitude, at 23:00lt would have seen EXACTLY the same as i did, Acrux to the left of the South Pole star, Cruz long axis above the horizon, about 20 degrees Alrtitude, and parallel to the horizon, the only difference would have been it would have been 4 hours later in local time.
Finally his representation of the stars is rubbish. When he imposes the star movements over the earth, with the “apparent” movement to an observer on the equator, does he not realise that he has stars on the NE of the equator disappearing as they get near the equator, then Re appearing after they pass overhead, and finally spreading out towards the edges?
In reality stars DO NOT look like that. I am guessing he has never actually seen stars on the equator, or at different points whilst travelling from north to south.
The angles or distances between stars does not change. If i measure an anglular distance from Alpha Centurii to Acrux I will get a reading, and that reading WILL BE THE SAME pretty much wherever i am on the earth when the 2 are visible. The same goes for the stars over the equator. When we are next on the equator i will do this at different time of the night, proving “perspective” cannot apply to stars.
P Brain is an adequate title for him if he thinks he has proven anything. It is more like smoke and mirrors of a magic trick, keeping you distracted with a load of rubbish, to distract the audience from the real reasons. Ie the earth is Round.
Pity Tom started a new thread as i already explained most of this post in my other thread. On the examination of the movement of stars
-
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
It can very easily be night for people on opposite meridians if they are at a sufficient latitude. Anywhere that you have more than 12 hours of darkness in winter can have observers at opposite sides of the earth observing sigma octantis at the same time.
Santiago, Chile and Perth, Australia are nearly 180 degrees of longitude apart, and both around 30 degrees south, so both could be expected to see sigma octantis at the same time every night for months during winter. Given the lack of people objecting to star charts being inaccurate, I think it is likely that this is the case.
-
[...]Additionally, we can see in the title shot of the video, there's not a cloud in the sky and the star field rotated. This implies something is actually rotating, not just appearing to rotate because clouds are passing by.
P-Brane is not saying that the stars rotate with the same mechanism as the sun's crepuscular rays rotate. The sun's crepuscular rays rotate due to clouds passing by in the foreground. The stars rotate due to a different (unknown) mechanism. He is using the sun's crepuscular rays as an example for how something can seem to be rotating in two different directions.
Spinning in a chair and looking up at the ceiling and then down at the floor also serves as an example for that.
So what, he wasted like 8 minutes of my life talking about crepuscular rays when all he had to say was "When you spin in a chair and looking up at the ceiling and then down at the floor you'll notice that they appear to rotate in opposite directions".
But that really doesn't work, because on flat earth, one cannot simply look down at the floor and see the stars. They are all above us. For this to work, when you spin counterclockwise in your chair and look up, the ceiling would have to spin counterclockwise until at some point further away from you perspective will cause the ceiling to appear to spin clockwise.
Could you explain how a single point can appear stationary while also sweeping across the nighttime half of the Earth (and be almost exactly South of everywhere) at the same time?
That is because you were taught to imagine the world as in the left side of this image below, which is what the Ancient Greeks taught, what the educational system continues to teach today, and is a wrong interpretation of perspective geometry. We really view the world in accordance to perspective that culminates to a point, as the right side of this overhead image shows:
(https://i.imgur.com/W2gARym.png)
P-Brane explains it more in his videos.
That's odd... When I look around what I see I have is a field of view. My vision do not appear to collapse to a point at a distance.
Here's a real picture, probably pretty familiar looking:
(https://i.imgur.com/m3oPBNk.jpg)
Does it match the drawing on the left, the one where objects receding into the distance occupy less and less of you field of view, which when projected onto a 2 dimensional surface (like your retina) would appear smaller
OR
The drawing on the right, where objects take up more and more of you field of view as they get farther away, and would appear larger when projected onto a 2D surface?
(https://i.imgur.com/R7fnOwD.jpg)
Neither your perspective on perspective or the P-Brane video explain how Sigma Octantis can appear to be in three different places at the same time. Well, P-Brane actually appears to creating multiple copies of it but as you rightly noted there is only one Sigma Octantis and proposed that it sweeps around the edge 12 hours out of phase with the Sun (placing it at position #2 as seen here).
(https://i.imgur.com/K5YAlSB.jpg)
So if it's to the due south (rimwise) of observer 2, how is it also appear to be south (rimwise) to observers 1 & 3?
-
The sun and stars are at such an altitude that they max out their downward perspective line angles into the earth, are moving consistently, or nearly so.
Since you seem to consider yourself to be an educator of sorts, could you explain this please? I read the wiki and still cannot imagine how the idea of perspective works in your head, and I cannot understand anything that article says... some diagrams would be very helpful.
This would also cause the spinning of the celestial disk to appear circular instead of an oval.
Supposing this is true (although again, I don’t really see how), at what altitude do you think circles that should appear as ovals (by all logic and day-to-day observation) actually begin to appear as circles again? In other words, how high does, say, a plane need to fly in circles for it to look like circles from a distance (not directly underneath the center of the circle) and not ovals as we would expect? And is the moon currently at that altitude or not?
I do think that we need a rewrite of this page to make the idea a little more clear, but it is a start.
Yes, I suppose you should, since your whole (already very flimsy) "theory" rests on this completely unfounded assertion and maybe like one or two more just as unfounded assertions, tops...
-
I was replying to a post which argued that perspective is caused by lenses in the eye that focus things to a point and then sends the image back onto the retina. You are saying that you agree with me that it has nothing to do with lenses? Great.
...
Do you agree, then, that the world is presenting a certain angular size to you and that it is not your eye doing it?
the poster you replied to was explaining apertures to you, not lenses. that's what your pupil is.
i'm replying to your argument that distant objects look smaller "because the world presents to us that they are shrunken." especially wrt to the diagram you posted. it makes no sense at all. "things look smaller because they look smaller" is not an explanation.
the reason things appear smaller as they recede from us is not mysterious. it's just angles. as an object recedes, it subtends a smaller and smaller angle. but this angle is always greater than zero. the smallest angle one can possibly resolve is a function of aperture (in the ideal case).
that's basically it. everything around you has a non-zero angular size, and there's a "smallest angle" your eyes can differentiate. note that infinity is not required.
-
That is because you were taught to imagine the world as in the left side of this image below, which is what the Ancient Greeks taught, what the educational system continues to teach today, and is a wrong interpretation of perspective geometry. We really view the world in accordance to perspective that culminates to a point, as the right side of this overhead image shows:
So what you are saying is that the farther something is away the smaller it appears? Always? Or just sometimes?
-
Probably just when it’s convenient for him
-
Perspective is how the world presents itself to us, and has nothing to do with your eyeball.
Er, no, it has EVERYTHING to do with your eyeball. You know that a building in the distance is still the same height no matter how far away you are yes? It's only the image formed inside your eye that makes it appear smaller yes?
Perspective also happens to pinhole cameras which don't have lenses.
The purpose of a lens if to focus the light rays in to a single point. A pinhole camera doesn't need a lens: it IS the point. So yes, perspective happens with pinhole cameras. I still don't think you realise what perspective actually is... You can think of it as the angles formed by light in to the pin hole... there is still an "image" on the other side of the pinhole yes? So the further things move away, the smaller they appear in that image, because the angles between the top and the bottom and smaller... If the angles are smaller, then they project a smaller image... I'm really not sure what you don't understand about this
Things shrink in the distance because the world presents to us that they are shrunken. They are not physically shrunken, but the world presents to us that they are. It has nothing to do with the lenses in your eye to cause the effect.
What?? If it's not the eye, then what is it? I really can't comprehend how to even respond to this nonsense. It's as if you think there's some sort of "magic" involved which "presents" a small image to your eye? It's not... it's light inside your eye hitting different points on your retina.
You are basically arguing that a tiny voracious bear 3 miles in the distance isn't really displayed by the world to you as tiny. It is only your eyeball causing it to be tiny. That is a ridiculous notion on several fronts.
That's perspective! The bear isn't literally smaller... the eye isn't "causing" it to be small... the light rays from the top of the bear and the light rays from the bottom of the bear, are entering your eye so very very close to each other, that the image projected on to your retina is very small... Larger angle, larger image... smaller angle, smaller image. You do understand how "lines" work right?
Take this image, from Johannes Kepler's "Astronomiae Pars Optica", published 1604 (not sure if it's an image from the book or derived). As the object described by A-B moves further away, then the image a-b gets smaller yes? We've known how the eye and perspective works for 400 years.
(http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas02fl/SkiP/Images/Misc/eyes.gif)
-
I have just wasted nearly 20 minutes watching the most jumbled explaination of why the stars rotate ets. It is a mixture of half truths, and jumping from one subject, to another with no connection.
OK Crepusculart rays. Even the actual ones in the very short clips he showed, (the “antcrepuscular” ones) not actually truly converge, but they do so in his diagrams, so they are not the same.
Secondly with the anti crepuscular rays the light source is behind your back, ie the sun. You never see the sun again when looking away from it. (This is important)
The light rays from the stars do not cause crepuscular rays, so there is no link between the 2, ie light from stars and crepuscular rays.
When looking at the stars they are in from of you, you are facing them, so the light cannot behave in the same way as anti crepuscular rays which are generated from behind you.
The light from the stars shine directly into your eyes, so there is no bending of the light source to a single point on the horizon. If that were the case then all of the stars if they were in a globe above us at fixed distance would by perspective be one single pinpoint of light.
In the video he makes massive jumps to conclusions that makes the South Pole star steady on the same bearing on the horizon at the same time, which is plainly wrong. What is also does not explain is why the relationship between the stars is the same.
I will give you an example of an actual observation i made last night.
We are in 20S latitude, and at about 19:00 lt, or 11:00Z o saw the constellation of Crux, (southern cross) with Acrux at an altitude of about 20 degrees above the horizon, and the long axis of Crux was about parallel with the horizon, pointing towards the South Pole star. At the same time of the night, in GMT about 11:00 hrs, someone in Fuji, with a similar lattitude, but 60degrees difference in longitude, at 23:00lt would have seen EXACTLY the same as i did, Acrux to the left of the South Pole star, Cruz long axis above the horizon, about 20 degrees Alrtitude, and parallel to the horizon, the only difference would have been it would have been 4 hours later in local time.
Finally his representation of the stars is rubbish. When he imposes the star movements over the earth, with the “apparent” movement to an observer on the equator, does he not realise that he has stars on the NE of the equator disappearing as they get near the equator, then Re appearing after they pass overhead, and finally spreading out towards the edges?
In reality stars DO NOT look like that. I am guessing he has never actually seen stars on the equator, or at different points whilst travelling from north to south.
The angles or distances between stars does not change. If i measure an anglular distance from Alpha Centurii to Acrux I will get a reading, and that reading WILL BE THE SAME pretty much wherever i am on the earth when the 2 are visible. The same goes for the stars over the equator. When we are next on the equator i will do this at different time of the night, proving “perspective” cannot apply to stars.
P Brain is an adequate title for him if he thinks he has proven anything. It is more like smoke and mirrors of a magic trick, keeping you distracted with a load of rubbish, to distract the audience from the real reasons. Ie the earth is Round.
Pity Tom started a new thread as i already explained most of this post in my other thread. On the examination of the movement of stars
You completely failed to grasp p-brane's argument. He isn't arguing that the stars produce crepuscular rays, he uses crepuscular rays as an example of how perspective works. His argument is premised upon the idea that the stars are on the same plane (on some sort of rotating stellar disc) and that the appearance of some of the stars appearing to be higher or lower is due to their distance from the observer.
-
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
It can very easily be night for people on opposite meridians if they are at a sufficient latitude. Anywhere that you have more than 12 hours of darkness in winter can have observers at opposite sides of the earth observing sigma octantis at the same time.
Santiago, Chile and Perth, Australia are nearly 180 degrees of longitude apart, and both around 30 degrees south, so both could be expected to see sigma octantis at the same time every night for months during winter. Given the lack of people objecting to star charts being inaccurate, I think it is likely that this is the case.
This is a highly questionable claim (their time zones are 13 hours apart). Evidence?
-
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
It can very easily be night for people on opposite meridians if they are at a sufficient latitude. Anywhere that you have more than 12 hours of darkness in winter can have observers at opposite sides of the earth observing sigma octantis at the same time.
Santiago, Chile and Perth, Australia are nearly 180 degrees of longitude apart, and both around 30 degrees south, so both could be expected to see sigma octantis at the same time every night for months during winter. Given the lack of people objecting to star charts being inaccurate, I think it is likely that this is the case.
This is a highly questionable claim (their time zones are 13 hours apart). Evidence?
Santiago, Chile: 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W
Perth, Australia: 31.9505° S, 115.8605° E
About 5° off being 180° opposite one another. Time zones aren't exact straight lines either. Not by a long shot.
-
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
It can very easily be night for people on opposite meridians if they are at a sufficient latitude. Anywhere that you have more than 12 hours of darkness in winter can have observers at opposite sides of the earth observing sigma octantis at the same time.
Santiago, Chile and Perth, Australia are nearly 180 degrees of longitude apart, and both around 30 degrees south, so both could be expected to see sigma octantis at the same time every night for months during winter. Given the lack of people objecting to star charts being inaccurate, I think it is likely that this is the case.
This is a highly questionable claim (their time zones are 13 hours apart). Evidence?
Santiago, Chile: 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W
Perth, Australia: 31.9505° S, 115.8605° E
About 5° off being 180° opposite one another. Time zones aren't exact straight lines either. Not by a long shot.
I doubt that Santiago, Chile and Perth, Australia can be in darkness at the same time but try:
Santiago, Chile: 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W
Sydney, Australia: 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E
UTC time = Thursday, 21 June 2018 at 09:10:00.
And it will be much the same in 2019.
Mind you it's full moon and Sigma Octantis and nearby stars are barely visible to the unaided eye at the best of times.
The Southern Cross (Crux) and its "pointers" (Alpha and Beta Centauri) are far brighter but about 30° from the South Celestial Pole.
-
You are basically arguing that a tiny voracious bear 3 miles in the distance isn't really displayed by the world to you as tiny. It is only your eyeball causing it to appear to be tiny. That is a ridiculous notion on several fronts.
Fixed that for you.