devils advocate

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2017, 08:49:01 AM »
What does Tom really know about perspective?! In EVERY other instance when we watch an object get further away it gets smaller, and if it is in the sky it gets lower, towards the horizon.

Except the sun, for some reason Tom believes that the sun is the exception, completely unique and as yet unexplained.

It can move away in the sky, still 3,000 miles up and move towards the horizon as it goes but REMAIN THE SAME SIZE. That is for the simple reason that the RE model of the sun is much better at describing the reality. The vast distance the sun is away from earth means that as it shifts a few measly thousands of miles to the west it's size doesn't change any more than an Elephant would appear to get smaller if the observer moved their eyes a thousandth of a millimetre backwards.

This whole sunset thread proves way beyond reasonable doubt that the FE position of the sun does not work. It does not fit with the empirical evidence presented.
The pinhole camera proof that the angle of sunset doesn't work on FE is pretty absolute.
The fact that at sunset the sun disappears from the bottom up, not by the whole circle shrinking proves it is not 3,000 miles up.
Tom your answers above reek of desperation, but why fight it anymore. The FE model of the sun does not work. Make a new one.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2017, 11:53:52 AM »
You have no knowledge on how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?
Quote
If that space of 3,000 miles is merged to one point, and that point is level with our eye, than it makes perfect sense that the photons travel along that path and reach our eye. The point is 90 degrees from zenith in its orientation around us; therefore the light is approaching the eye from that 90 degree angle.

If we see the sun at the horizon at that 90 degree angle, the sun also sees us at its horizon at a 90 degree angle. The photons are leaving the sun at the same angle they are coming in. 90 degrees. There is no contradiction.

You are assuming that it is only all incoming light that is squished with perspective. It is also all outgoing light that is squished. You are assuming that it is only human eyes that experience perspective. All objects experience perspective. From the POV of the sun, it is sending out a photon directly at the observer.

The actual path is IRRELEVENT in your attempted model of the scene because, as we have already discussed, the model is an incorrect representation of reality. It only represents how you think things should be based on rules which have never been seen. No one has ever seen your infinitely-approaching-perspective-lines nonsense. That is completely hypothetical.

The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.

Quote
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?

The Ancient Greeks, who came up with that theory, have never demonstrated that hypothesis. No attempt of evidence has been provided, or even attempted. That idea is completely hypothetical. Why should we base reality on completely hypothetical ideas?

You claim to know the "rules" of the universe, but have no piece of evidence to point towards to justify your idea that perspective lines infinitely approach each other.

The only true rules come from the universe itself, and it is observed that a horizon exists. If your hypothetical rule list can't comprehend with that when you attempt to make a model, then tough. It's wrong.

Well, you are behaving exactly as I predicted you must.

Quote
The actual path is IRRELEVENT

It may (or may not) be "IRRELEVENT" - but if your model is correct and you are solidly convinced by it - then you should still be able to tell us what that path is.

So again, I ask you:

1) What is the physical location of the sun at sunset?  (It's ACTUAL position, not where it APPEARS to be).
2) What path do the photons take to get from the sun to my eyes?

Honestly - these should be VERY simple questions - and if your theory cannot explain them - then it's junk.

You are being evasive because you KNOW that your theory cannot answer these two questions without being proved to be incorrect.

So...stop evading and diverting - just answer those two simple questions.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Sushi

  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #62 on: October 02, 2017, 10:51:06 AM »


Hi, everyone.
I didn't want to start a new thread so I posted here.
I am new here.I have found an interesting video about horizon and curvature.
This is a Turning Torso building (190m tall).
Building works as a scale.The video shows building from different distances ranges (25-50 km).
It shows when you zoom, some parts of the building are not visible due to the curvature of the earth.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #63 on: October 02, 2017, 12:08:04 PM »


Hi, everyone.
I didn't want to start a new thread so I posted here.
I am new here.I have found an interesting video about horizon and curvature.
This is a Turning Torso building (190m tall).
Building works as a scale.The video shows building from different distances ranges (25-50 km).
It shows when you zoom, some parts of the building are not visible due to the curvature of the earth.

View-over-water experiments are difficult because you have perspective and earth curvature (or not, depending on which side of the debate you're on) - and close to the water, you get mirages and such which confuse where the precise horizon line is.  It's very difficult to do this accurately - so the results are unconvincing.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #64 on: October 02, 2017, 05:25:42 PM »


Hi, everyone.
I didn't want to start a new thread so I posted here.
I am new here.I have found an interesting video about horizon and curvature.
This is a Turning Torso building (190m tall).
Building works as a scale.The video shows building from different distances ranges (25-50 km).
It shows when you zoom, some parts of the building are not visible due to the curvature of the earth.

View-over-water experiments are difficult because you have perspective and earth curvature (or not, depending on which side of the debate you're on) - and close to the water, you get mirages and such which confuse where the precise horizon line is.  It's very difficult to do this accurately - so the results are unconvincing.

Agree.   The distance and lack of map is the conclusive proof.   There is zero ambiguity in that argument.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #65 on: October 03, 2017, 08:33:02 AM »
The picture he's looking at shows that the further away the object gets, the smaller the angle to the ground it gets.  This is reasonable - light travels in straight lines.  If we extended the diagram off to the right with more and more equally spaced suns, the angle would get smaller and smaller - right?
Correct, the angle relative to us would, I don't see where this could go with perspective, but lets see.
Quote
At a billion miles, the angle would be a tiny fraction of a degree - at a trillion miles, still smaller - and at INFINITY the angle would be ZERO...or as close to zero as matters (the math term is "Infinitesimal" - one divided by infinity - not strictly zero - but essentially that).
No, that is not how it works in terms of perspective.
You have optical angular resolution which greatly depends on wavelengths of light correlating with optics aperture. Using 'frames', which represent our field of vision, they decrease size at farther distances until they indistinguishable in terms of distance from the eye.

The black rectangles would be the frames.
Real world example:

Quote
This IS the standard law of perspective.
 
No it isn't, it's unjustified gobblygook that is a load of nonsense.
Quote
The further two parallel train tracks lead away from you, the narrower the perceived angle between them.  But even at a billion miles, they don't quite meet.  Only infinitely far from the eye to those train tracks come together.
You can't perceive a billion miles, they converge because distances become indistinguishable at such distances.
Quote
He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".
It isn't, it is missing how optical perspective actually works and replacing it with geometry without basis in reality.
Quote
But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero.   If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?
The angle is decreasing because of how distances and wavelengths of light hit our eyes or however you are viewing it, the geometric angle indeed plays a role but the angle is not our perception.
Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!
That diagram is without basis in reality, it doesn't relate to distance perception at all.
Quote
At 2:43, he's just added some suns moving downwards - but the sun isn't moving downwards in the real world - only in the eye of the viewer.   The original diagram is showing the path of the actual photons...the rays of light traveling from the sun to the viewer.
Those window shades aren't either but they follow such an apparent path.
Photon angles from the sun don't correlate to how we perceive them in reality, they work with how we distinguish distances between points at differing distances from our eyes.
Quote
He's overlaid a side-on diagram onto a sloping wall...WTF?  How does that prove anything?  You can't just take a 2D side-on diagram and paste it onto a photograph taken at some random angle and demand that they line up perfectly!  What kind of a bullshit claim is *THAT*?
If you understood the context of the video, you would know that the point was that convergence of these perspective lines don't exist in this model he is criticizing, which completely contradicts with what we actually see with the window shades example brought here.
Quote
but you can see that the stickman's eyeline matches the eyeline in the photo - and the sun gets closer to the horizon in the same way that the strips on the wall do.
The lines in that model never intersect, but that's exactly what they are doing here, approaching intersection which is easily visible in our reality. So, if this were the case, we could never perceive a steepening consistency of convergence paths, since perspective lines wouldn't angle towards a point.

Quote
Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.



Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.

Quote
What we see is that FAR from reaching the "horizon" at 6pm, the effect of perspective is shortening the *visual* distance between the consecutive sun positions...so although the sun is indeed lowering in the sky - it'll never reach it because it's moving smaller and smaller distances with each hour that passes.

The distances between become less distinguishable at farther distances and so the farther distances produce no such effect, relative to the distances to the point of convergence, the above frames sizes become more similar until they are indistinguishable differences from our standpoint. This point is therefore invalid.
Quote
Equally spaced pillars getting closer together as they get shorter.  The number of pillars needed before the height of the building is zero has to be infinite because every time you halve the height of the building, you double the number of columns you need
Which is incorrect and faulty misunderstanding of perspective, as I have explained.
Quote
This is WHY the FE sun can never set.
You failed to provide any justification for that proposition.
Quote
The problem is that he's guilty of PRECISELY the thing that he falsely accuses the original diagram of.  He's using a 2D representation fo the sun on a 3D photograph of a real world thing.

You simply can't do that.
Yes you can, it is for simplicity of the concept.
Quote
You can prove your point with a 2D diagram - or you can prove it with a 3D photographic visualization - but the instant you mix the two - you screwed up.
There isn't an inherent difference in terms of visual representations. So, I don't know what you are implying here.
Quote
Clearly the guy who made it DOESN'T understand the first thing about how perspective works.
Exactly what you showed, misunderstanding of perception.
Quote
So...RE-BUNKED!  (is that even a word?)
Not at all, you failed to debunk or successfully counter anything here and relied on false concepts.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #66 on: October 03, 2017, 09:06:55 AM »
The angle is decreasing because of how distances and wavelengths of light hit our eyes or however you are viewing it, the geometric angle indeed plays a role but the angle is not our perception.
how, pray tell, does our vision works?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #67 on: October 03, 2017, 01:03:43 PM »
Not at all, you failed to debunk or successfully counter anything here and relied on false concepts.

Your post basically just says "no it doesn't", "this isn't how it works" and stuff like that.

It doesn't say WHY you believe that.

My post very carefully explains - point by point - WHY the original video is wrong.  That's how rational debate works.   You're treating this like the Monty Python "Argument sketch".

   

Your photo of train tracks doesn't ACTUALLY show the train tracks meeting.  Let's zoom into it:



Nope - they don't meet.

You say that we can't see things a billion miles away - but that's not true.  In RET, the  Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is visible to the naked-eye and it's 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away.  Even in your flat-earth "universe" you can certainly see the star "polaris" from somewhere near to the equator - and in your idea of the world, it's at least 6,700 miles away.

So we CAN see things that are 6,700 miles away...for sure...even in FET.   So I certainly COULD see hypothetical train tracks that were going out to 6,700 miles.   According to Tom, the only reason we can't see them further than "the horizon" is because the air isn't clear enough...which is bullshit because you can see them for longer distances from an airplane at 1,000 feet.

The problem with the idea that train tracks meet sometime before infinity is this:   Suppose parallel train tracks met at 5 miles from your eye.   What would happen if we climbed a ladder so we could see 10 miles?   I can only think of three possibilities:

1) They meet at 5 miles, cross over and then get further and further apart until they are as far apart as they are up-close.

2) They meet at 5 miles, and then continue on as one straight line for the next 5 miles.   That doesn't work because light travels in straight lines - and the straight train tracks would have an abrupt kink in them at 5 miles....so the light from beyond 5 miles would have to kink too.

3) They simply "vanish" at 5 miles.

Let's do a thought experiment:  What would happen if we had the entire ground in front of us completely covered in parallel train tracks - parallel train tracks going off towards the horizon left and right of us for 1000 miles in each direction.

What would you see?   If they just "vanish" at 5 miles - what do we see on a clear day when we can see 10 miles?   If they shrank to a point and then carried on as a thin line, then all of our view of the world would be a triangle with some kind of gap either side of the tracks at the horizon.   If they crossed over...wow...would that be a mind-bending trip!



Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #68 on: October 04, 2017, 05:18:18 AM »
how, pray tell, does our vision works?
It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point. As frames shrink, they reach a point of convergence as seen by our perception. This is fundamental, there isn't magical non-intersecting lines angled at a compressed frame where apparent distances converge, they do intersect due to the fact that our field of vision shrinks to an imperceptible angular distance, that's a point from our perspective, the point of convergence. The video here got that right, and the OP brings nonsensical gobblygook to run it over, and fails.

It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #69 on: October 04, 2017, 05:50:29 AM »
how, pray tell, does our vision works?
It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point.
uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things? How do the eye works?
Quote
It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.
I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.

EDIT: exercise for the reader: draw the side, top and resulting perspective view of a room with a lamp hanging from the ceiling at a 2 m height, 4 m away from the observer.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 05:56:07 AM by Ga_x2 »

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #70 on: October 04, 2017, 06:48:26 AM »
Your post basically just says "no it doesn't", "this isn't how it works" and stuff like that.
I'm correcting your misunderstandings and nonsensical rebuttals to this video, I included illustrations that I presume would help.
Quote
It doesn't say WHY you believe that.
I pointed out that it's because we observe it, not this 'infinite angular distance perception' nonsense.
Quote
My post very carefully explains - point by point - WHY the original video is wrong.
And gets it wrong, and that's a problem, so I point it out.
Quote
That's how rational debate works. You're treating this like the Monty Python "Argument sketch".
Which is why I pointed out what you got wrong, and I explained myself, it's up to you to be rational and consider what I'm saying and explain yourself more.
Quote
Your photo of train tracks doesn't ACTUALLY show the train tracks meeting.  Let's zoom into it:



Nope - they don't meet.
That's because we can perceive the distances between the tracks at our distance, just significantly more compressed and approaching the same point of convergence which frames reach a point at due to the convergence of our vision with our angular resolution. Doesn't rebut anything I said. You exclaimed that at every possible finite distance, we can perceive the same distances of parallel lines and can never meet at indistinguishable differences with our eyes, which is clearly false by the sight of converging parallel lines all pointing to one direction. This is impossible in what you claim here, as lines can't approach (graphing two approaching lines will have them meet at a finite distance between coordinates).
Quote
You say that we can't see things a billion miles away - but that's not true.

No, I said apparent distances are not perceivable at such distances to the limits of vision with perceptible angular distances. I brought this up so I'll quote it:
Quote
The distances between become less distinguishable at farther distances and so the farther distances produce no such effect, relative to the distances to the point of convergence, the above frames sizes become more similar until they are indistinguishable differences from our standpoint.
Seeing celestial objects is not the same as perceiving angular distances by a point, the sun's descent follows these similar angular distances with a consistent descent. How this connects is that distances we can't perceive (being at a point) represent perspective lines that converge. Angular diameter however is gonna vary by the size and distance while having no bearing on our frame convergence. This is why the sun could be said to be beyond the apex of perspective lines, in that it is beyond perceivable distances with frames and so moves through them as celestial object at a consistent rate.
Quote
In RET, the  Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is visible to the naked-eye and it's 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away.  Even in your flat-earth "universe" you can certainly see the star "polaris" from somewhere near to the equator - and in your idea of the world, it's at least 6,700 miles away.
It's pretty large to be seen and much larger frame angles, basically the field of view in the environment through which the lines meet. Distances traversed would be convergent in that it's movement would be more consistent as distances appear to converge quite similarly relative to our overall horizon distance.
Quote
So we CAN see things that are 6,700 miles away...for sure...even in FET.   So I certainly COULD see hypothetical train tracks that were going out to 6,700 miles.
 
Inaccurate logic, again. Seeing an object at a far distance doesn't imply all perceived distances are perceptible at every possible distance from us.
They reach apparent angles at which we can't distinguish from a point, our field of vision does that, the point of convergence.
Quote
The problem with the idea that train tracks meet sometime before infinity is this:   Suppose parallel train tracks met at 5 miles from your eye.   What would happen if we climbed a ladder so we could see 10 miles?
   
That's analogous to saying, "What if we move farther forward and use that to represent our perspective at a previous point?", which is faulty logic. Perception is unique to each location, the fact that angular distances converge to a point from our perspective isn't an objective phenomena that represents all distances
Quote
I can only think of three possibilities:

1) They meet at 5 miles, cross over and then get further and further apart until they are as far apart as they are up-close.

2) They meet at 5 miles, and then continue on as one straight line for the next 5 miles.   That doesn't work because light travels in straight lines - and the straight train tracks would have an abrupt kink in them at 5 miles....so the light from beyond 5 miles would have to kink too.

3) They simply "vanish" at 5 miles.
Your frame (field of vision rectangle) would be larger at higher altitudes and therefore more distance to have lines approach each other beyond your visual angle to reach an apparent point. Perspective lines broaden and you visualize farther.
Video example:

Quote
What would happen if we had the entire ground in front of us completely covered in parallel train tracks - parallel train tracks going off towards the horizon left and right of us for 1000 miles in each direction.
They would all branch off to a horizon surrounding us where perspective lines reach an angle imperceptible to us, creating this horizon.
Quote
What would you see?   If they just "vanish" at 5 miles - what do we see on a clear day when we can see 10 miles?   If they shrank to a point and then carried on as a thin line, then all of our view of the world would be a triangle with some kind of gap either side of the tracks at the horizon.   If they crossed over...wow...would that be a mind-bending trip!
They would reach a point where your frame of view shrinks into a dot beyond your perceivable angles of vision, you can't visualize beyond that from your standpoint, if that changed, so would the horizon line and point of convergence.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #71 on: October 04, 2017, 06:56:48 AM »
uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things?
Light, your eyes, and aperture. Basic.
Quote
How do the eye works?
You asked how our vision works in response to my claim of how our vision is limited. This isn't biology we are discussing here, take that somewhere else.
Quote
I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.
We don't, there you go making up nonsense about how what I'm saying connects to other things and something I supposedly refuse along with another group.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #72 on: October 04, 2017, 07:47:07 AM »
uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things?
Light, your eyes, and aperture. Basic.
Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?
Quote
Quote
How do the eye works?
You asked how our vision works in response to my claim of how our vision is limited. This isn't biology we are discussing here, take that somewhere else.
It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.
Quote
Quote
I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.
We don't, there you go making up nonsense about how what I'm saying connects to other things and something I supposedly refuse along with another group.
did you make my exercise for the reader? :P
Quote
draw the side, top and resulting perspective view of a room with a lamp hanging from the ceiling at a 2 m height, 4 m away from the observer.
I forgot the front view, but it's the same.

Rama Set

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #73 on: October 04, 2017, 01:26:56 PM »
how, pray tell, does our vision works?
It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point. As frames shrink, they reach a point of convergence as seen by our perception. This is fundamental, there isn't magical non-intersecting lines angled at a compressed frame where apparent distances converge, they do intersect due to the fact that our field of vision shrinks to an imperceptible angular distance, that's a point from our perspective, the point of convergence. The video here got that right, and the OP brings nonsensical gobblygook to run it over, and fails.

(Picture removed)

It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.

How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?

And now, a horrendous piece of logic from Tom:

A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.

Incorrect.  Cameras do not experience, unless you want to attribute some sort of subjectivity to them.  Also, we do not experience perspective in the same way, we experience the data that cameras report as the same perspective we experience with our eyes. 

Quote
P2. Cameras are objects.

Yay! You got one!

Quote
C. Objects experience perspective.

You have to show that P1. holds for every object unless you wish to assert that all objects are cameras

Quote
P1. Cameras without lenses experience perspective
C. Perspective is not a lens phenomenon

This is true.  The perspective phenomenon is to do with the visual angle subtended by an object that is observed.  The angle subtended in inversely proportional to the distance of observation.  It is super weird that you cannot grasp this extremely basic and demonstrable law.
 

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #74 on: October 04, 2017, 03:58:53 PM »
Let me explain to SuperSentient what he (and EVERY OTHER FE'er) is failing to understand...

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING:


Take the train-track example.   You see two lines (which in the real world are parallel) and you find the intersection line between them - then claim that this distance is closer than infinity.

You claim this because you can make a picture of some train tracks - draw a line down each rail - and observe that they intersect somewhere a just a little beyond what the camera lens shows.

You SEE with your eyes that the two lines obviously meet - not very far (it seems) beyond the limits of the camera's lens or our visual acuity.  You never actually DO see the tracks meeting - but you presume that they must because you can draw the two lines on top of the photo - and it looks like they meet somewhere just fractionally beyond the resolution of the camera.

So you conclude that parallel lines meet at some distance from the eye like maybe 10 miles or 100 miles or something...and base all of FET's optical properties on this, seemingly reasonable, claim.

BUT THERE IS A PROBLEM:

What you are MISSING (and it's kinda subtle - but VERY important) is shown in the photo below.  (You can show it with the horizontal railroad ties on train tracks too - but they are rather closely spaced and that makes it hard to get a strong visual impression.)



Now, let's talk about the building on the left.  You can draw a line at roof level and another one at ground level and see that they intersect...but what you're claiming is that this intersection is happening at some distance from us - 10 miles, 100 miles - whatever.   I'm claiming that...yes, the lines obviously intersect - but the DISTANCE at which they intersect is infinite.

Now I hear you complaining.

But let's look at the vertical columns and the windows of that building - they are regularly spaced out there in the real world...maybe a few meters apart.

But look CAREFULLY at them in the picture.  Do you see that the separation between the columns in the photograph is smaller in the distance than it is near to the camera?

On my computer screen, the first two columns are about 3 centimeters apart. (Depends on the size of your computer screen)

The next two columns are only around 2 centimeters apart, and the next pair are maybe 1.2 cm apart...the distance between them gets smaller and smaller.

The last two columns are less than 2 millimeters apart - you can hardly see a gap between them.

So here is what's happening.  The closer together the roof line and the pavement line get - the more and more compressed the distance INTO the scene the picture becomes.   The horizontal spacing between columns get smaller and smaller.

What's actually happening is that as the VERTICAL distance is being compressed by "perspective" - so is the distance INTO THE SCENE.  So when the roof/pavement lines would be VERY close to touching, they'd be representing something a billion miles into the scene - and at the precise point where the "perspective lines" touch - we are INFINITELY far into the scene.

Another way to think of this is that just as the left/right and up/down spacing of things shrinks with perspective, so does the near/far distance.

X, Y and Z are *ALL* shrinking as we go further into the distance.

So when the X or Y distance hits zero - so the Z spacings of our columns ALSO hits zero - and you get an infinite number of columns packed together into that last screen pixel as we approach the vanishing point.

An THAT is why parallel lines meet at INFINITE Z and not 10 miles or 100 miles as FE'ers seem to believe.

I can quite understand why this fooled you - and I have to say that it hurts my brain even thinking about it.  But regardless - this is what truly happens.

USING MATH:

This is MUCH clearer if you do it with math.   Perspective is used all the time in photo-realistic 3D graphics - which is what I do for a living.

   x' = k.x / z
   y' = k.y / z

(x,y,z) is a point in the real/virtual world (in a coordinate system where the "camera" is at (0,0,0) and z is distance away from the camera).
(x', y') is the point on the screen where that point ends up (in a coordinate system where the center of the screen is (0,0)).
   k     is a constant that relates to the 'lens' of the virtual camera and the size/resolution of the screen.

These two equations are built into every 3D computer game - every simulation, every CGI movie.  It's so fundamental that it's even built into the hardware of 3D graphics cards in your PC.

We do this because it's the only formula that produces realistic pictures.

So if one railroad rail is 1 meter to the right of the camera (x=+1) - then at what value of 'z' does it arrive at the vanishing point?

  x' = 0
  x  = +1

What is 'z'?

  0 = k . 1 / z

  z = k / 0

...hmmm - that's a problem because you can't divide by zero without getting an infinity for 'z'.

And that's the mathematical reason why parallel lines meet at infinity under perspective.

DERIVATION:

I can even derive those equations for you - from first principles - using a 'pinhole camera' analogy:

I drew this diagram for a thread about perspective and sunsets - but forget for a moment that this is about the sun...pretend that the blue line in the diagram a tree or something in the far distance.  A pinhole camera is just a box with a pinhole punched in the front and a photographic plate at the back - it's the simplest possible camera - and it produces upside-down photographs.



The law of similar triangles says that:

  Himage / Dimage = Hsubject / Dsubject

  Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject

The height of the image is the height of the subject (the tree) multiplied by the distance from the pinhole from the film and divided by the distance to the subject (the tree).

This is actually the exact same perspective equation that I used before:

  y' = k.y / z

* k = Dimage
* y' = Himage
* y = Hsubject
* z = Dsubject

QED.

The only way to discount this derivation of the math for perspective is to deny that light travels in straight lines - or to deny that the method of similar triangles is valid.

So the pinhole camera is proof of the equations - and the equations are proof of the laws of perspective.

The observation that perspective operates in Z as well as in X and Y is further proof that FET's concept of finite vanishing points is untrue.

I think this argument is completely watertight - and so far, nobody in FE land has been willing to even discuss it.   Tom just says "it's just a diagram"...which is a rather fundamentalist anti-science, anti-math position - and if he were honest and consistent then he'd have to call "bullshit" on all of Rowbothams diagrams too!
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #75 on: October 04, 2017, 04:50:13 PM »
Quote
Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.



Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.

This also demonstrates that this model fails to account for the constant angular speed of the sun. Note that the sun is moving about 22 degrees per interval at the top, and it's down to about 10 by the end.  And that's with the error pointed out that the visual distance would shrink due to perspective - if this represented how perspective actually works it would be EVEN WORSE.

The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #76 on: October 05, 2017, 03:17:15 AM »
Quote
Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png

Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.

This also demonstrates that this model fails to account for the constant angular speed of the sun. Note that the sun is moving about 22 degrees per interval at the top, and it's down to about 10 by the end.  And that's with the error pointed out that the visual distance would shrink due to perspective - if this represented how perspective actually works it would be EVEN WORSE.

The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.

That was addressed on page 1.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #77 on: October 05, 2017, 05:43:53 AM »
Quote
Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png

Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.

This also demonstrates that this model fails to account for the constant angular speed of the sun. Note that the sun is moving about 22 degrees per interval at the top, and it's down to about 10 by the end.  And that's with the error pointed out that the visual distance would shrink due to perspective - if this represented how perspective actually works it would be EVEN WORSE.

The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.

That was addressed on page 1.

Ah, thank you, I hadn't understood that that was what you were getting at but I see it now.

To see if I understand properly, it sounds like you are saying that the change in angular velocity of an object as it passes has to do with the distance from the observer. This means that something farther away will have less change in angular velocity, until at some distance (say, 3000 miles), the change in angular velocity goes to zero. Is that correct?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #78 on: October 05, 2017, 02:45:08 PM »
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:

Quote
Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:


The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".

Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.

No - they never "merge together" - that would happen only at infinity...which is OK in my view of perspective - but if your claim for perspective shrinking things to zero size only happens at 10 miles or whatever - then no - they have not "merged together".

Quote
Therefore, if the sun is sufficiently far away to where the vertical planks are merged together, the distance the sun has to travel between states becomes constant. The horizontal dividers of different perceived lengths between the vertical planks that hold them together no longer exist.

But that can only happen at infinity - and the FE sun doesn't get to infinity...which is why it can never "set".

Quote
The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is 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 Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 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  (what is basically seen in the above picture).

Yeah - exactly.  The angle from your eye to the Cessna changes REALLY quickly when it's overhead and slows down to a barely perceptible angular change as it goes off into the distance.

You FE sun would do the exact same thing.  It would track across the sky at crazy high speeds when overhead - and slow down to a crawl later in the day.

BUT THIS ISN'T WHAT THE SUN REALLY DOES.   A simple measurement of the sun angle at regular intervals shows that it crosses the sky at a CONSTANT angular rate of around 15 degrees per hour.

The Flat Earth sun wouldn't do that - it would be maybe 30 degrees per hour when overhead and slow down to one or two degrees per hour in late afternoon.

Your Cessna example is EXACTLY what we're saying your FE sun would do.   Since it clearly doesn't do that (and it doesn't change in size like the Cessna does either) - it's CLEARLY going in a circle around us.  (Well, that would be the Geocentric Round Earth view - in reality, the Sun stays still and we spin around - but the relative motion is the same either way).

Put this way:  If an object remains at the same size no matter what (true of Sun, moon, planets, comets and stars) then even with your "magic perspective" it cannot be changing in distance.

If it's tracking across the sky at a constant angular rate of 15 degrees per hour and not changing distance - then it MUST be moving in a circle...not sliding along a horizontal plane as FET would have us believe.

So the only way you have out of this mess is to declare yet ANOTHER property of magic perspective.

* Magic perspective causes the sun to appear to be on the horizon.
* Magic perspective causes parallel lines to meet at the horizon.
* Magic perspective explains why the sizes of sun, moon, etc never change with distance.
* Magic perspective explains why we can't see opposite sides of the moon from opposite ends of the earth.
* Magic perspective explains why the moon appears tilted depending on where you are in the world.

Basically, so long as you never let yourself be tied down as to the actual path of photons through space - you'll continue to pile more and more unlikely properties into this vague "magic perspective" rabbit hole and hope we never find an inconsistency.

I suppose it's your best strategy - vagueness is definitely your best defense these days.

Quote
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. 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.

If the jet was 10 times higher than the cessna and moving at 10 times the speed - and they were both overhead at the exact same instant and travelling in the exact same direction - then they'd appear to be in the same spot in your field of view.   The rate of change of angle would be the same for the jet as for the cessna...the law of similar triangles (or simple trigonometry)  proves that.

Go learn some high-school geometry...or draw a diagram if you don't believe me...I really can't be bothered to teach you basic math skills today.

So sadly, you're guessing and hoping - and you guessed wrong.  This is not the Zetetic method is it?

Quote
In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

That simply doesn't work.  So you're saying that once they are BEYOND the vanishing point...what exactly happens?

You know you're REALLY going to have to tell us where the photons go in these circumstances.   Your clear failure to answer this question really makes you look particularly bad right now.   It's been almost a week since you promised to tell us.  You're stretching the "I'm too busy" thing a bit beyond credibility.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #79 on: October 05, 2017, 10:48:07 PM »
Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?
I don't necessarily accept that but am willing to grant it for this case, since light can travel in straight lines and what I'm saying here be correct.
Quote
It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.
Not to perspective, I don't need to explain the biology of the eye to explain perspective lines, or that eyes have aperture like a lens.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0