I'm glad to see that the video sparked a conversation at least. I was rather hoping that people would try the experiment. I figure if you participate, you're less antagonistic towards the results. So that part didn't work out... now let's discuss the results...
But you already know what I'm going to say. Where did the Ancient Greeks ever provide evidence for their perspective model?
Lets just agree not to have that conversation again for the 100'th time and agree that the Ancient Greek's Continuous Universe model is full of assumptions which have not been demonstrated.
Did you notice that in the video, I made no mention of the Ancient Greeks or a perspective model at all? This video was all about doing it
empirically. That's the zetetic way right? Since the logical reasoning behind WHY this happens is controversial, let's shelve that for now. Let's just discuss what we saw first.
What we see very clearly is that apparent sizes (and apparent distances of any kind) shrink with distance from the viewer. We further showed that apparent sizes are inversely proportional to the distance from the viewer. We didn't use any theory to arrive at this. This comes from photographs and measurements.
It's 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 jet into the distance at an illegal altitude of 300 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.
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move slowly across the sky, throughout its extent, despite that it is traveling at the same speed as the previous plane. 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.
Does our photographic observation match the example of planes flying overhead? Yes. Perfectly. As high as any plane can fly, this observation matches it.
When it is directly overhead at 300 ft, it is 300 ft from you. We'll call the apparent speed at that point
s.
When the plane moves forward 300 ft, its distance from you is now 424 ft, and that will make its new apparent speed 0.707
s.
Let the plane get forward 1000 ft, and its distance from you will be 1044 ft giving it an apparent speed of 0.287
s.
"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."
Check.Now consider the plane at 45,000 ft. Directly overhead, its apparent speed will be 0.00667
s.
Let that plane move forward 300 ft, so it is now 45,001 ft from you. Its apparent speed will be 0.00667
s. (It's lower, but you must go past 3 significant figures to see it.)
Let the plane get to 1000 ft in front of you. Its distance is 45,011 ft from you. Apparent speed 0.00667
s. (Still lower, but not quite showing to 3 significant figures yet.)
"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."
Check.Quick review... how did I get all those apparent speeds? They come from speed = distance/time. "apparent speed" = "apparent distance" / time. Simply take the inverse relationship between "apparent distance" and distance from viewer, and apply that. Recall that we got the inverse relationship not from any theory, but from
empirical evidence.
Did my lego's really show that? Actually they really did. From the legos, I discovered the inverse relationship between apparent distance and distance from the viewer. I tested this with different ranges of size and distance, but certainly not out to anything close to 45,000 ft. But when I applied what I saw at 1 ft, 10 ft, and 100 ft to your example of 45,000 ft; the results worked! If you take a video of a plane travelling overhead, you could validate this.
But I only measured the heights of objects getting farther away from the viewer horizontally. Could it be different for different directions? Why not investigate? You can measure the widths of objects instead of heights, and you'll get the same result. Measure the apparent distance between the objects, and the result is the same. Do the experiment pointing the camera up vertically instead, and see if the results are any different.