The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 11:41:08 PM
-
I live about 20 miles from the local airport, directly under a common flight path. Because of this I constantly have airplanes fly over my house as they are coming in to land. One thing that I have observed is that just after sunset, but before dark, if I look up in the sky at one of these planes, I can see them clearly as they are lit from the sun from below. This fact is something that has been known since the dawn of military aviation as even the most stealthy of aircraft is visible clearly from the ground after the sun has set on the ground below but before the sun has set on the airplane. This makes perfect sense from a RE perspective as the sun would actually be below the airplane at this point. How does this phenomenon work from a FE perspective? From what I understand the sun is a constant 3000 miles above the surface of the plane of the earth. How then does a flying aircraft become lit form underneath? Please explain.
-
Here is a pic I took just now of this phenomenon. Sorry for the crappy android camera.
-
It's not being lit from below, it's being lit from the side. The horizon line rises to the level of the eye and the sun disappears into it via perspective.
-
It's not being lit from below, it's being lit from the side. The horizon line rises to the level of the eye and the sun disappears into it via perspective.
Diagram please to explain. How can the horizon change?
-
(http://eimages.interweave.com/audience-development/Artist-Daily/perspective-drawing/vanishing-point.jpg)
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. The higher the balloon traveled in height, the further he saw. His perspective lines were constantly changing, revealing additional lands, while the balloon and the eye level horizon line remained stationary.
-
(http://eimages.interweave.com/audience-development/Artist-Daily/perspective-drawing/vanishing-point.jpg)
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. The higher the balloon traveled in height, the further he saw. His perspective lines were constantly changing, revealing additional lands, while the balloon and the eye level horizon line remained stationary.
Any recent explanations?
The further he rose the more he saw over the horizon of the round earth.
Still waiting to hear what equipment you need.
-
Any recent explanations?
Why? Does truth have an expiration date?
-
Any recent explanations?
Why? Does truth have an expiration date?
Your usual unhelpful answer. It was not true then or now and I am sure you know that.
Equipment list for determining the shape of the earth please.
-
Your usual unhelpful answer. It was not true then or now and I am sure you know that.
Why would the London Journal lie about this subject?
Equipment list for determining the shape of the earth please.
What are you talking about and what does it have to do with this thread?
-
Your usual unhelpful answer. It was not true then or n ow and I am sure you know that.
Why would the London Journal lie about this subject?
Equipment list for determining the shape of the earth please.
What are you talking about and what does it have to do with this thread?
The fake news of its time. Please concentrate on showing us answers that are recognised today, the sun is lower than the plane.
You have not answered the request elsewhere, why not, you are obligated so to do.
-
It's not being lit from below, it's being lit from the side. The horizon line rises to the level of the eye and the sun disappears into it via perspective.
I see planes lit from the bottom all the time. Even more convincing is that fact that you can go out any morning/evening when their are some clouds in the sky and see they are lit from the bottom. Perspective cannot cause light to illuminate the underside of clouds if the light source is above the clouds. Your willingness to ignore evidence that you are clearly wrong, while basing your views on outdated material, is very odd.
-
Your usual unhelpful answer. It was not true then or now and I am sure you know that.
Why would the London Journal lie about this subject?
Equipment list for determining the shape of the earth please.
What are you talking about and what does it have to do with this thread?
It has never been proven in a laboratory. Please provide evidence.
-
It's not being lit from below, it's being lit from the side. The horizon line rises to the level of the eye and the sun disappears into it via perspective.
I see planes lit from the bottom all the time. Even more convincing is that fact that you can go out any morning/evening when their are some clouds in the sky and see they are lit from the bottom. Perspective cannot cause light to illuminate the underside of clouds if the light source is above the clouds. Your willingness to ignore evidence that you are clearly wrong, while basing your views on outdated material, is very odd.
The answer is that due to perspective, the sun is setting it near the eye level of the observer, and therefore its rays are coming at you from the side. The sun's rays are also hitting clouds from the side. The back end of the cloud is facing you, and the cloud is semi-transparent, so it appears as if the cloud is illuminated from the bottom.
-
It's not being lit from below, it's being lit from the side. The horizon line rises to the level of the eye and the sun disappears into it via perspective.
I see planes lit from the bottom all the time. Even more convincing is that fact that you can go out any morning/evening when their are some clouds in the sky and see they are lit from the bottom. Perspective cannot cause light to illuminate the underside of clouds if the light source is above the clouds. Your willingness to ignore evidence that you are clearly wrong, while basing your views on outdated material, is very odd.
The answer is that due to perspective, the sun is setting it near the eye level of the observer, and therefore its rays are coming at you from the side. The sun's rays are also hitting clouds from the side. The back end of the cloud is facing you, and the cloud is semi-transparent, so it appears as if the cloud is illuminated from the bottom.
An aircraft is not transparent and the sun is lower than it hence illuminates the bottom. It is very simple.
Why do you continually use the word perspective when it has no meaning related to the subject?
-
It's not being lit from below, it's being lit from the side. The horizon line rises to the level of the eye and the sun disappears into it via perspective.
I see planes lit from the bottom all the time. Even more convincing is that fact that you can go out any morning/evening when their are some clouds in the sky and see they are lit from the bottom. Perspective cannot cause light to illuminate the underside of clouds if the light source is above the clouds. Your willingness to ignore evidence that you are clearly wrong, while basing your views on outdated material, is very odd.
The answer is that due to perspective, the sun is setting it near the eye level of the observer, and therefore its rays are coming at you from the side. The sun's rays are also hitting clouds from the side. The back end of the cloud is facing you, and the cloud is semi-transparent, so it appears as if the cloud is illuminated from the bottom.
This doesn't explain the plane, and perspective wouldn't change where the light is actually coming from. Just because you see a light touching the horizon due to your perspective, doesn't make the light begin to come from there unless the rays of light are curving. Are they curving Tom? Because science says they don't.
-
The plane is lit from the side.
Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.
-
The plane is lit from the side.
Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.
If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.
-
The plane is lit from the side.
Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.
If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.
In a railroad perspective scene the tracks of a railroad can ascend in height to your eye level. Why can't the sun descend to your eye level?
-
The plane is lit from the side.
Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.
If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.
In a railroad perspective scene the tracks of a railroad can ascend in height to your eye level. Why can't the sun descend to your eye level?
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would. If the sun setting is a trick of perspective, sunlight shouldn't be hitting clouds from the side at much of an angle, unless you're claiming light is bending/curving.
-
The plane is lit from the side.
Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.
If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.
In a railroad perspective scene the tracks of a railroad can ascend in height to your eye level. Why can't the sun descend to your eye level?
We are discussing actual measurable facts. When I see the sun set in the west it appears higher in the sky for someone 500 miles to the west of me.
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
The horizon is below me. Fact.
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
No, because the sun is not physically there, and light doesn't bend. The sun is still 3000 miles above the location 6 hours to my West. The rail road tracks are still at the height of my feet (presuming the ground is flat here) and not at the height of my eyes. The light coming from the sun is coming at an angle determined by the distance to the point it is directly above. If that location is, say 8000 miles away, it'll be coming in at an angle of 20 degrees above the horizontal. Perspective doesn't change that light travels in straight lines.
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
No, because the sun is not physically there, and light doesn't bend. The sun is still 3000 miles above the location 6 hours to my West. The rail road tracks are still at the height of my feet (presuming the ground is flat here) and not at the height of my eyes. The light coming from the sun is coming at an angle determined by the distance to the point it is directly above. If that location is, say 8000 miles away, it'll be coming in at an angle of 20 degrees above the horizontal. Perspective doesn't change that light travels in straight lines.
If the light was coming at you at an angle of 20 degrees above the horizontal, that light source would appear 20 degrees above the horizontal.
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
No, because the sun is not physically there, and light doesn't bend. The sun is still 3000 miles above the location 6 hours to my West. The rail road tracks are still at the height of my feet (presuming the ground is flat here) and not at the height of my eyes. The light coming from the sun is coming at an angle determined by the distance to the point it is directly above. If that location is, say 8000 miles away, it'll be coming in at an angle of 20 degrees above the horizontal. Perspective doesn't change that light travels in straight lines.
If the light was coming at you at an angle of 20 degrees above the horizontal, that light source would appear 20 degrees above the horizontal.
Then either light bends, or the Earth isn't flat. Those are your options. Pick one. If you choose light bends, let's see your proof overturning years of science on the subject.
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
The interesting thing about this comment is that you are actually proving that the Earth is round and simply don't realize it. Yes, if the horizon is 90 degrees, and the sun is on the horizon, the photons will arrive from that angle. This is critical. In FET, the sun will NEVER truly be on the horizon. Train tracks are often used in matters of perspective, so let's use them in an example. Let's suppose you have a laser point on a roller and a detector at the starting point. If you sent the pointer down the track it would appear to your eye to move to towards the other track as they converged VISUALLY. The beam of light, however, would stay on the detector. It would never change. This is the same with a never setting sun. It may APPEAR to be moving towards the horizon, but it isn't. Not even a little.
The Earth is round. Many nations have gone into space in one fashion or another. Private companies are now going into space. How long can you keep deluding yourself? And my importantly, why???
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
The interesting thing about this comment is that you are actually proving that the Earth is round and simply don't realize it. Yes, if the horizon is 90 degrees, and the sun is on the horizon, the photons will arrive from that angle. This is critical. In FET, the sun will NEVER truly be on the horizon. Train tracks are often used in matters of perspective, so let's use them in an example. Let's suppose you have a laser point on a roller and a detector at the starting point. If you sent the pointer down the track it would appear to your eye to move to towards the other track as they converged VISUALLY. The beam of light, however, would stay on the detector. It would never change. This is the same with a never setting sun. It may APPEAR to be moving towards the horizon, but it isn't. Not even a little.
The Earth is round. Many nations have gone into space in one fashion or another. Private companies are now going into space. How long can you keep deluding yourself? And my importantly, why???
An alternative explanation is that the Ancient Greeks did not really understand how perspective works at large distances.
Where did they ever prove their theory that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for eternity but never touch?
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
The interesting thing about this comment is that you are actually proving that the Earth is round and simply don't realize it. Yes, if the horizon is 90 degrees, and the sun is on the horizon, the photons will arrive from that angle. This is critical. In FET, the sun will NEVER truly be on the horizon. Train tracks are often used in matters of perspective, so let's use them in an example. Let's suppose you have a laser point on a roller and a detector at the starting point. If you sent the pointer down the track it would appear to your eye to move to towards the other track as they converged VISUALLY. The beam of light, however, would stay on the detector. It would never change. This is the same with a never setting sun. It may APPEAR to be moving towards the horizon, but it isn't. Not even a little.
The Earth is round. Many nations have gone into space in one fashion or another. Private companies are now going into space. How long can you keep deluding yourself? And my importantly, why???
An alternative explanation is that the Ancient Greeks did not really understand how perspective works at large distances.
Where did they ever prove their theory that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for eternity but never touch?
But light doesn't care about perspective does it? Light travels in straight lines. It doesn't matter if the sun appears to be touching the horizon, being 3 thousand miles above the Earth it will always have a larger than 0 angle above the horizon for the light to be coming from. You *have* to have a mechanism that changes this property of light then. Or the Earth isn't flat. Those are your options at this point Tom, no matter how you want to dance around them.
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
The interesting thing about this comment is that you are actually proving that the Earth is round and simply don't realize it. Yes, if the horizon is 90 degrees, and the sun is on the horizon, the photons will arrive from that angle. This is critical. In FET, the sun will NEVER truly be on the horizon. Train tracks are often used in matters of perspective, so let's use them in an example. Let's suppose you have a laser point on a roller and a detector at the starting point. If you sent the pointer down the track it would appear to your eye to move to towards the other track as they converged VISUALLY. The beam of light, however, would stay on the detector. It would never change. This is the same with a never setting sun. It may APPEAR to be moving towards the horizon, but it isn't. Not even a little.
The Earth is round. Many nations have gone into space in one fashion or another. Private companies are now going into space. How long can you keep deluding yourself? And my importantly, why???
An alternative explanation is that the Ancient Greeks did not really understand how perspective works at large distances.
Where did they ever prove their theory that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for eternity but never touch?
The word perspective is not relevant to this discussion. The sun is lower that the aircraft.
-
But light doesn't care about perspective does it? Light travels in straight lines. It doesn't matter if the sun appears to be touching the horizon, being 3 thousand miles above the Earth it will always have a larger than 0 angle above the horizon for the light to be coming from. You *have* to have a mechanism that changes this property of light then. Or the Earth isn't flat. Those are your options at this point Tom, no matter how you want to dance around them.
Who says that light doesn't care about perspective? How can the lands appear to ascend to eye level if they were not really ascending to your eye level? Can you see a bunny rabbit beyond your vanishing point?
You seem to think perspective is an illusion rather than physical manifestation of angles at distance.
-
But light doesn't care about perspective does it? Light travels in straight lines. It doesn't matter if the sun appears to be touching the horizon, being 3 thousand miles above the Earth it will always have a larger than 0 angle above the horizon for the light to be coming from. You *have* to have a mechanism that changes this property of light then. Or the Earth isn't flat. Those are your options at this point Tom, no matter how you want to dance around them.
Who says that light doesn't care about perspective? How can the lands appear to ascend to eye level if they were not really ascending to your eye level? Can you see a bunny rabbit beyond your vanishing point?
You seem to think perspective is an illusion rather than physical manifestation of angles at distance.
If you think that then you have even less of an idea of what is being discussed than I thought. Perspective doesn't come into this at all. If I have a completely flat plane of land (Kansas is a prime example from your own wiki) and I look out over it, it appears to rise to the eye right? But did the elevation actually change? Did the ground actually, literally rise up to the level of my eye in that distance? No. Ergo, optical illusion. Same with the sun. No matter how far away you put the sun, since light travels in straight lines it will never reach a 0 degree angle upon the horizon. It will never hit the exact side of the sun. In fact, unless the Earth is incredibly large, it won't dip past 5 degrees (I would note, this assumes 20,000 miles between you and a location 6 hours time difference, making the Earth incredibly large, and even then it's only an 8.5 degree angle). So that means the sunlight is always coming in at an angle greater than 5 degrees above horizontal. Perspective, being an illusion of the eye as shown above, cannot account for the side angle upon the clouds then. Vanishing point and perspective have nothing to do with simple science. Unless you can show light bending, you cannot explain the angle of the sun upon the plane as coming from a location nearly parallel to the horizon line.
-
Side view drawings of Ancient Greek perspective theories do not translate into the real world. See this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgbqFyiisQ
-
We are discussing actual measurable facts. When I see the sun set in the west it appears higher in the sky for someone 500 miles to the west of me.
When did you measure this?
-
Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).
-
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.
In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?
The interesting thing about this comment is that you are actually proving that the Earth is round and simply don't realize it. Yes, if the horizon is 90 degrees, and the sun is on the horizon, the photons will arrive from that angle. This is critical. In FET, the sun will NEVER truly be on the horizon. Train tracks are often used in matters of perspective, so let's use them in an example. Let's suppose you have a laser point on a roller and a detector at the starting point. If you sent the pointer down the track it would appear to your eye to move to towards the other track as they converged VISUALLY. The beam of light, however, would stay on the detector. It would never change. This is the same with a never setting sun. It may APPEAR to be moving towards the horizon, but it isn't. Not even a little.
The Earth is round. Many nations have gone into space in one fashion or another. Private companies are now going into space. How long can you keep deluding yourself? And my importantly, why???
An alternative explanation is that the Ancient Greeks did not really understand how perspective works at large distances.
Where did they ever prove their theory that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for eternity but never touch?
I couldn't care less about the ancient Greeks. The rest of the world has advanced in our understanding of optics and how the brain works. I am discussing real, verifiable facts. For the last time PERSPECTIVE DOESN'T CHANGE WHERE AN OBJECT IS LOCATED!!! A light source above an object will NEVER directly illuminate the bottom of it. You treat perspective like it something it is not. The train track example proves exactly what I am talking about, but you ignored that...
-
Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).
How do you know that it's an illusion that the perspective lines converge and that they do not really converge? Is it because you said the word "Fact."?
-
Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).
How do you know that it's an illusion that the perspective lines converge and that they do not really converge? Is it because you said the word "Fact."?
So you're saying the ground actually rises to eye level at the horizon upon a flat surface? The railroad tracks actually meet and merge at a point in the distance? The definition of parallel lines says they will never actually meet. Railroad tracks are a visual example of this. Parallel, never actually meeting, but appearing to in the distance. If you're going to try and argue that point then I'm going to have to assume you're just a troll at best. At worst you don't have a grounding in reality. Stop latching onto a single thing you think you have a point against and look at the whole argument Tom. Or at least be smart about what you're trying to pick a bone with and not something that is a known factor. You claim parallel lines actually converge and cross over one another in the distance. Not only does that mean they aren't parallel, but we have a stunningly easy to observe real world example of railroad tracks. They appear to converge into a single track in the distance. But we both know they don't actually do that. Could it be the convergence is an optical illusion?
-
We are discussing actual measurable facts. When I see the sun set in the west it appears higher in the sky for someone 500 miles to the west of me.
When did you measure this?
Last week. Do you agree?
-
Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).
How do you know that it's an illusion that the perspective lines converge and that they do not really converge? Is it because you said the word "Fact."?
Do you really not understand the meaning of perspective? Or is it the game you play here.
-
We are discussing actual measurable facts. When I see the sun set in the west it appears higher in the sky for someone 500 miles to the west of me.
When did you measure this?
Last week. Do you agree?
I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd love to see your logs of data and methods.
-
Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).
How do you know that it's an illusion that the perspective lines converge and that they do not really converge? Is it because you said the word "Fact."?
Tom, what causes the Sun and Moon to look larger when they are on the horizon? Wouldn't your interpretation of perspective preclude this? Also, I would appreciate your comments on my previous post as I do feel they point out some very obvious problems with how you try to use perspective to explain the setting of the Sun.
-
Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).
How do you know that it's an illusion that the perspective lines converge and that they do not really converge? Is it because you said the word "Fact."?
Tom, what causes the Sun and Moon to look larger when they are on the horizon? Wouldn't your interpretation of perspective preclude this? Also, I would appreciate your comments on my previous post as I do feel they point out some very obvious problems with how you try to use perspective to explain the setting of the Sun.
I think he's abandoned this thread like a few others that are looking for information from him. It's a shame really, his responses are at least interesting problems to attempt to create solid debate responses to, even if it seems like him and Junker never actually read the entirety of what's posted.
-
Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).
How do you know that it's an illusion that the perspective lines converge and that they do not really converge? Is it because you said the word "Fact."?
Tom, what causes the Sun and Moon to look larger when they are on the horizon? Wouldn't your interpretation of perspective preclude this? Also, I would appreciate your comments on my previous post as I do feel they point out some very obvious problems with how you try to use perspective to explain the setting of the Sun.
I think he's abandoned this thread like a few others that are looking for information from him. It's a shame really, his responses are at least interesting problems to attempt to create solid debate responses to, even if it seems like him and Junker never actually read the entirety of what's posted.
It certainly is frustrating. This is a topic where we can actually prove FET wrong with simple observation of the morning and night sky, but they refuse to tackle the subject. I guess thinking the Earth is flat is more appealing than living in reality.
-
(http://eimages.interweave.com/audience-development/Artist-Daily/perspective-drawing/vanishing-point.jpg)
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. The higher the balloon traveled in height, the further he saw. His perspective lines were constantly changing, revealing additional lands, while the balloon and the eye level horizon line remained stationary.
See my post about pinhole cameras.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785.0
This nonsense about perspective is just that...nonsense.
PLEASE reply on the pinhole camera thread. Thanks!