What do you mean it "takes place outside of the universe"?? It's just a diagram. It is used to portray angles and distances. If you go outside and physically measure the angle in reality, that angle should agree exactly with the one portrayed in an orthographic view. I don't understand why you are so vehemently opposed to a simple diagram. (Actually I do know... it's because you don't want to acknowledge that the earth isn't flat.)

The first person view scene you presented doesn't make any sense without the accompanying side view scene. It can't. In the first person scene the angles you represented don't even exist from that view. You are in an entirely different dimension when you switch between the two scenes.

The angles from the side view are translated to the first person view via the

field of view of the camera. Seriously, stop complaining about this, and just go test it. It is easy to test.

No, an object technically can never reach the vanishing point.

Where is the evidence of this? We see that they do. What kind of evidence is there that they do not?

It's common sense. Of course an object can never reach the vanishing point, because the vanishing point is at infinity. An object can never travel an infinite distance away from you. How on earth could it?

However, the object can get arbitrarily close to the vanishing point. It can get so close to the vanishing point that we can't tell the difference with our eyes. We can predict *exactly* how close to the vanishing point it will be using simple trigonometry like I have used. You can test this yourself with some parallel lines, a few objects, a camera, and careful measurements. Stop claiming that the math doesn't work when you can easily verify for yourself that it does work.

Surely if this math is so tested and true for this purpose, you can provide evidence justifying it.

It's rather difficult to justify anything with you, when you seem to be in denial of basic geometry, number theory, calculus and algebra. I'm not going to personally teach you several years worth of math in order to justify something that you could just walk outside and test with several objects and a camera. Just go test it for yourself. It is trivially easy. Here, I'll give you the exact hypothesis to test:

Assuming our naked eyes can't distinguish anything less than 0.02°, an object will appear to touch another object when the ratio of distance between the objects to distance from our eyes is approximately 1:3000.

So, if they are 1 mm away from each other, they will appear to touch when they are 3 meters away from your eyes. Go test it. Stop begging me to prove it for you.

You are telling us that the Ancient Greeks calculated infinite distances and we should take that as an unquestionable truth. This has not been demonstrated. This type of math is founded on a shaky premise which exists only in imagination.

What on earth do you mean by "calculated infinite distances"? Of course you don't have to accept any of this as unquestionable truth. It helps to have at least a basic understanding of the subject before you declare it to be useless though.

It is well known that the math and physics of the Ancient Greeks don't really work.

By whom? You? You are the only person I have ever heard espouse this opinion. I think you are exaggerating here.

For example, they also predict the concept of line and point graphs, which are infinitely indivisible, and that space and time can be represented on them to explain physical actions. We are taught this in school and are encouraged to use their methods. For some simple high level things it may seem to work. But this math it is also makes it impossible to walk through a door, or for a rabbit to overcome a tortoise in a race. See: Zeno's Paradox

Lol. No, Zeno's paradox does not prevent us from reaching a destination according to basic geometry. It's mostly just a philosophical thought experiment. Calculus deals with infinities and infinitesimals quite easily.

Any continuous mathematical model like this which predicts infinities should be looked at with scrutiny and demands justification.

Trigonometry does not predict infinity. It

*assumes* continuity. There is a difference. However,

*you* don't have to assume that space is continuous in order for trigonometry to be useful. Just round your answers to the nearest discreet value of space. Problem solved. I assume that's what you are arguing for, right? That space is somehow quantized? If space is in fact quantized, there is no reason to suspect that it would effect the answers significantly for the scale that we are working on (thousands of miles).