The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: KevinIlProf on July 11, 2015, 08:03:07 PM
-
Hi I'm new to this website and I was looking for a question that I had in my mind of your philosophy about the flat-earth idea, but I didn't find it. So I'm going to ask it here, hoping it's the correct section.
In a flat earth if I went with my car from my house (in a plain zone) to a mountain I would see it "zooming" from a little point (which I should see also from my home if there aren't any interferences e.g. buildings) up to an enormous "triangle", which is the mountain itself.
In a round earth If I did the same thing I would start to see the mountain from the top, then as I come to its base I can see more of its base.
Now tell me... You know obviously that when a person goes to the mountains he/she sees first the top and not the whole object. How can it happen in a flat model?
P.s. sorry for my english, but I'm Italian
UPDATE:
and also, in simple words, how do tides work?
-
The mountain is shrinking by perspective behind any imperfections in the earth's surface.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2yn48lk.png)
-
and also, in simple words, how do tides work?
The tides are discussed in Chapter 12 of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm).
-
The mountain is shrinking by perspective behind any imperfections in the earth's surface.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2yn48lk.png)
I am not sure why that picture is there.
-
There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.
-
There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.
Oh wow, ok, what part is the imperfection?
-
There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.
Oh wow, ok, what part is the imperfection?
The wooden crate.
-
There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.
Oh wow, ok, what part is the imperfection?
The wooden crate.
Oh. Why don't you just use an actual photo series?
-
There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.
So how come the tree in the middle pops up higher than the ones either side?
You can see more of the base of the trunk in the middle tree.
-
There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.
Oh wow, ok, what part is the imperfection?
The wooden crate.
Oh. Why don't you just use an actual photo series?
probably because most RE'ers trust cartoons more.
-
This hypotesis works, as you have explained, with objects like trees that can be covered thanks to perspective by smaller objects (the box). But, where I live (North Italy) there are some cliffs in the middle of a lot plains, full of wheat/rice fields. So there aren't any interferences (only little buildings in the middle of nowhere. But still When I go there I still see first the top and then the base. How do you explain this?
-
This hypotesis works, as you have explained, with objects like trees that can be covered thanks to perspective by smaller objects (the box). But, where I live (North Italy) there are some cliffs in the middle of a lot plains, full of wheat/rice fields. So there aren't any interferences (only little buildings in the middle of nowhere. But still When I go there I still see first the top and then the base. How do you explain this?
Is North Italy perfectly and geometrically flat, whereby not even an inch of soil rises above the plane for further bodies to shrink behind?
-
This hypotesis works, as you have explained, with objects like trees that can be covered thanks to perspective by smaller objects (the box). But, where I live (North Italy) there are some cliffs in the middle of a lot plains, full of wheat/rice fields. So there aren't any interferences (only little buildings in the middle of nowhere. But still When I go there I still see first the top and then the base. How do you explain this?
Is North Italy perfectly and geometrically flat, whereby not even an inch of soil rises above the plane for further bodies to shrink behind?
No it isn't perfectly flat.
But as I come nearer to the mountain there are fewer objects (e.g. less crops, buildings) that could really cover the cliff by perspective which is "enlarging" to my eyes. No, you can actually see it coming from the top to its base.
If you will continue saying that something is covering the cliff to be shown or something similar still I can tell you that there is really something which is covering the mountain. it is known as the curvature of the earth.
-
This hypotesis works, as you have explained, with objects like trees that can be covered thanks to perspective by smaller objects (the box). But, where I live (North Italy) there are some cliffs in the middle of a lot plains, full of wheat/rice fields. So there aren't any interferences (only little buildings in the middle of nowhere. But still When I go there I still see first the top and then the base. How do you explain this?
Is North Italy perfectly and geometrically flat, whereby not even an inch of soil rises above the plane for further bodies to shrink behind?
Bodies cannot shrink behind an inch of soil unless they are less than an inch high. If you believe otherwise, you should be able to draw a simple diagram of optical lines to demonstrate it. As it stands your assertion supported by a strange set of diagrams do nothing to demonstrate your position.
-
This hypotesis works, as you have explained, with objects like trees that can be covered thanks to perspective by smaller objects (the box). But, where I live (North Italy) there are some cliffs in the middle of a lot plains, full of wheat/rice fields. So there aren't any interferences (only little buildings in the middle of nowhere. But still When I go there I still see first the top and then the base. How do you explain this?
Is North Italy perfectly and geometrically flat, whereby not even an inch of soil rises above the plane for further bodies to shrink behind?
Bodies cannot shrink behind an inch of soil unless they are less than an inch high. If you believe otherwise, you should be able to draw a simple diagram of optical lines to demonstrate it. As it stands your assertion supported by a strange set of diagrams do nothing to demonstrate your position.
What makes you think that a body would need to be an inch in height, or less, to disappear behind a inch of soil?
Did you know that it is possible to obscure an elephant with a dime?
-
This hypotesis works, as you have explained, with objects like trees that can be covered thanks to perspective by smaller objects (the box). But, where I live (North Italy) there are some cliffs in the middle of a lot plains, full of wheat/rice fields. So there aren't any interferences (only little buildings in the middle of nowhere. But still When I go there I still see first the top and then the base. How do you explain this?
Is North Italy perfectly and geometrically flat, whereby not even an inch of soil rises above the plane for further bodies to shrink behind?
Bodies cannot shrink behind an inch of soil unless they are less than an inch high. If you believe otherwise, you should be able to draw a simple diagram of optical lines to demonstrate it. As it stands your assertion supported by a strange set of diagrams do nothing to demonstrate your position.
What makes you think that a body would need to be an inch in height, or less, to disappear behind a inch of soil?
Did you know that it is possible to obscure an elephant with a dime?
Not if the dime is on the ground. If you are going to make the argument, you should know how the optics work at least.
-
Not if the dime is on the ground. If you are going to make the argument, you should know how the optics work at least.
Perspective brings the ground up to the level of your eye. Things on the vanishing point horizon are at eye level. This is fundamental to perspective.
The earth is not perfectly flat, and so any disturbances on the surface will become apparent where the land rises to meet the eye, creating a mass, even if imperceptive, for which far and distant bodies which might be a magnitude further away, can shrink behind.
There are actually multiple vanishing points at the horizon. Objects at differing heights will appear to reach the horizon either sooner or later than each other, non-consistently, as they are each traveling along their own perspective lines into their own vanishing points.. Consider a plane flying at 1000 feet and a plane flying at 40,000 feet. The higher plane will appear to descend into the earth slower than the lower plane. In fact, the lower plane will disappear into the horizon faster, long before the higher plane. We see from that example, which is undeniably apparent, that there are multiple sets of vanishing points which are height dependent. In the mountain example, the land below has simply reached its vanishing point before the mountain, and that is why the land at the horizon is at eye level, and the mountain beyond that is still above the level of the eye, remaining so until sufficient distance puts it into the horizon.
The descriptions above are the same as those in Earth Not a Globe, logically intuitive, and are consequence of the observations of our natural world.
-
Not if the dime is on the ground. If you are going to make the argument, you should know how the optics work at least.
Perspective brings the ground up to the level of your eye. Things on the vanishing point horizon are at eye level. This is fundamental to perspective.
The earth is not perfectly flat, and so any disturbances on the surface will become apparent where the land rises to meet the eye, creating a mass, even if imperceptive, for which far and distant bodies which might be a magnitude further away, can shrink behind.
There are actually multiple vanishing points at the horizon. Objects at differing heights will appear to reach the horizon either sooner or later than each other, non-consistently, as they are each traveling along their own perspective lines into their own vanishing points.. Consider a plane flying at 1000 feet and a plane flying at 40,000 feet. The higher plane will appear to descend into the earth slower than the lower plane. In fact, the lower plane will disappear into the horizon faster, long before the higher plane. We see from that example, which is undeniably apparent, that there are multiple sets of vanishing points which are height dependent. In the mountain example, the land below has simply reached its vanishing point before the mountain, and that is why the land at the horizon is at eye level, and the mountain beyond that is still above the level of the eye, remaining so until sufficient distance puts it into the horizon.
The descriptions above are the same as those in Earth Not a Globe, logically intuitive, and is consequence of the observations of our natural world.
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
The blue lines radiating away from the dime are the dime's shadow, that is, the dime's size in comparison to the elephant. Once the dime and the elephant are sufficiently separated, the dime will obscure the elephant, just as you can obscure a nearby elephant with a dime by holding it out in front of you with your arm.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2d0np04.png)
The analogy that the dime's image casts a shadow upon all bodies beyond it is apt. The image of the dime radiates outwards, just as a shadow does, growing with distance. We do not see a black shadow on the elephant because, if you are in a room with a light source behind us and hold out and align a dime perfectly with your eye, you will not see its shadow on the wall, just the dime. And if we bring the dime closer or further from our face we can obscure more or reveal more, making the shadow bigger or smaller, illustrating that the image grows and radiates outwards.
Per straight light rays, consider: You are standing in a room and hold out a dime in front of your face, entirely obscuring a television on the wall. How could the television be obscured if the television is much larger than a dime and light travels in straight lines? The answer, of course, is that the image of the dime radiates outwards with distance, via natural laws of perspective, allowing it to obscure televisions and elephants. None of it is to say that the light from the television is not traveling straight, but the dime is just aligned with the eye and obscuring it. Going reverse from television to dime, in assessment of the path of light, the operation is simple: If there is something obscuring the eye, the light will be obscured.
The operation from eye to dime to elephant is actually also simple: If there is something obscuring the elephant, the elephant will be obscured. But considering that this seems difficult to comprehend, this is neither here nor there.
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
And where is the Earth in your diagram? The elephants appear to be flying.
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.
It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
And where is the Earth in your diagram? The elephants appear to be flying.
The elephants are on their own perspective lines in relation to the observer, which causes them to shrink into the horizon abyss at a slightly slower pace. Go back to the high plane/low plane analogy. Multiple vanishing points, height dependant, all meeting at the horizon.
As to what their perspective lines would look like, they would look very similar to the perspective lines drawn for the dime, except with a slightly more acute angle.
As per the flat ground, the ground has its own perspective lines that are independent of even the dime, intersecting with eye level slightly to the left of it, and is unillustrated. What is seen are perspective lines of the dime.
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.
It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.
The reason the horizon appears to rise to eye level is that we can't perceive the curvature between ourselves and the horizon, just as we can't perceive the curvature of the horizon in the left/right direction, you don't perceive the horizon to be lower until you get to the altitude where the left/right curvature starts to become visible.
So, at low altitudes where "the horizon rises to eye level" there will be some point where the dime can be placed to obscure anything you like, the question that is harder to answer is where that position is, It can't be the vanishing point, since the dime itself would vanish, it can't be at ground level for any reasonable distance, since the sight line to the vanishing point would be over the top of the dime. It would have to be close and positioned about eye level to obscure the distant elephant. No question that distant objects can be obscured by higher objects in the foreground, the question is does the geometry make sense. A better diagram might help.
-
The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.
It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.
So, how far is it from the observer to the dime that's on the horizon and how far beyond the horizon are the elephants?
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.
It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.
The reason the horizon appears to rise to eye level is that we can't perceive the curvature between ourselves and the horizon, just as we can't perceive the curvature of the horizon in the left/right direction, you don't perceive the horizon to be lower until you get to the altitude where the left/right curvature starts to become visible.
So, at low altitudes where "the horizon rises to eye level" there will be some point where the dime can be placed to obscure anything you like, the question that is harder to answer is where that position is, It can't be the vanishing point, since the dime itself would vanish, it can't be at ground level for any reasonable distance, since the sight line to the vanishing point would be over the top of the dime. It would have to be close and positioned about eye level to obscure the distant elephant. No question that distant objects can be obscured by higher objects in the foreground, the question is does the geometry make sense. A better diagram might help.
The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds. However, emperically, the dime is still there to block light rays and cast "shadows" behind it, as I have described, regardless if you can readily see it or not.
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.
It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.
The reason the horizon appears to rise to eye level is that we can't perceive the curvature between ourselves and the horizon, just as we can't perceive the curvature of the horizon in the left/right direction, you don't perceive the horizon to be lower until you get to the altitude where the left/right curvature starts to become visible.
So, at low altitudes where "the horizon rises to eye level" there will be some point where the dime can be placed to obscure anything you like, the question that is harder to answer is where that position is, It can't be the vanishing point, since the dime itself would vanish, it can't be at ground level for any reasonable distance, since the sight line to the vanishing point would be over the top of the dime. It would have to be close and positioned about eye level to obscure the distant elephant. No question that distant objects can be obscured by higher objects in the foreground, the question is does the geometry make sense. A better diagram might help.
The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds. However, emperically, the dime is still there to block light rays and cast "shadows" behind it, as I have described, regardless if you can readily see it or not.
Ok so everything vanishes, and the dime can in fact obscure the elephant, provided the elephant as close to vanishing already, what happens when I look through a telescope, I'm no longer limited to 1 arc second minute. Are the elephants still hidden?
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.
It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.
On a FE the earth does not literally rise to meet your eyes. I am interested in the actual physical relationships that cause your alleged phenomena.
-
Ok so everything vanishes, and the dime can in fact obscure the elephant, provided the elephant as close to vanishing already, what happens when I look through a telescope, I'm no longer limited to 1 arc second minute. Are the elephants still hidden?
It depends. Looking through a telescope will change your perspective lines and create new vanishing points.
In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham was able to look into a telescope across lakes and reverse the sinking effect. When done on the ocean the sinking effect was unable to be reversed, presumably because the disturbances on the surface whete the new vanishing point lay were still too great for the telescope to overcome.
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.
It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.
On a FE the earth does not literally rise to meet your eyes. I am interested in the actual physical relationships that cause your alleged phenomena.
This is the way I interpret the effect.
If you imagine you are walking up a hill, the horizon as you look towards the top of the hill is clearly above you, as you crest the top of the hill the horizon clearly falls away and is lower than you. Now consider what happens on the globe. There is no perception that the horizon is lower than you, and as you climb higher that doesn't really change, so the "horizon rises to eye level" keep going higher and as you get to 100,000 ft or more the left-right curvature starts to become obvious and the horizon starts to look clearly lower than you. Keep going to the ISS and the curvature is clear, and the horizon is way below you.
At least that's my interpretation. it's our inability to detect curvature in the line between ourselves and the horizon.
-
Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?
This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:
The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer
So you put the dime at the vanishing point? Why would you do that?
The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.
It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.
On a FE the earth does not literally rise to meet your eyes. I am interested in the actual physical relationships that cause your alleged phenomena.
This is the way I interpret the effect.
If you imagine you are walking up a hill, the horizon as you look towards the top of the hill is clearly above you, as you crest the top of the hill the horizon clearly falls away and is lower than you. Now consider what happens on the globe. There is no perception that the horizon is lower than you, and as you climb higher that doesn't really change, so the "horizon rises to eye level" keep going higher and as you get to 100,000 ft or more the left-right curvature starts to become obvious and the horizon starts to look clearly lower than you. Keep going to the ISS and the curvature is clear, and the horizon is way below you.
At least that's my interpretation. it's our inability to detect curvature in the line between ourselves and the horizon.
But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.
-
The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds.
Oh, so then the dime isn't necessarily on the horizon or at eye level? Thanks for clearing that up.
-
The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds.
Oh, so then the dime isn't necessarily on the horizon or at eye level? Thanks for clearing that up.
How does that follow from what you quoted?
-
But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.
How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?
What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.
-
The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds.
Oh, so then the dime isn't necessarily on the horizon or at eye level? Thanks for clearing that up.
How does that follow from what you quoted?
Well, on the one hand, the perspective vanishing point is always on the horizon which is always very far away. On the other hand, small things can become too small to see (vanish) long before they reach the horizon. The dime could reach its vanishing point at a few hundred feet while the vanishing point on the horizon is several miles away.
-
The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds.
Oh, so then the dime isn't necessarily on the horizon or at eye level? Thanks for clearing that up.
How does that follow from what you quoted?
Well, on the one hand, the perspective vanishing point is always on the horizon which is always very far away. On the other hand, small things can become too small to see (vanish) long before they reach the horizon.
Regardless if you can see it clearly, it's still going to obscure light rays from the elephant. It is a physical obstruction.
-
But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.
How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?
What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.
I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.
-
The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds.
Oh, so then the dime isn't necessarily on the horizon or at eye level? Thanks for clearing that up.
How does that follow from what you quoted?
Well, on the one hand, the perspective vanishing point is always on the horizon which is always very far away. On the other hand, small things can become too small to see (vanish) long before they reach the horizon.
Regardless if you can see it clearly, it's still going to obscure light rays from the elephant. It is a physical obstruction.
How can the dime obstruct your view of the elephant if the dime is too small to see and below your eye level?
-
But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.
How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?
What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.
I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.
Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.
How can the dime obstruct your view of the elephant if the dime is too small to see and below your eye level?
For the first point, the dime may be too small to see, but it is still going to block light rays. Consider a tower on the horizon. Although the bricks which make up the tower are too small to see, they are still each undeniably blocking the light of the things behind it.
For the second point, perspective places things at the horizon on your eye level.
Consider: Imagine we are on a very large dirt plane. We are 5 feet 10 inches tall. We look directly 90 degrees ahead at the horizon and see a dirt line. How can we see dirt at our eye level if we know that the dirt is 5 feet 10 inches below us?
From Chapter 5 of The Perspective Handbook by Joseph D'Amelio we read:
Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.
You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level.
It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.
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. His perspective lines were constantly changing, revealing additional lands, while the horizon line remained stationary at eye level.
It could be argued that this should not have happened if the earth were a globe. The horizon should have been seen to drop rather than remain stationary.
If you believe that the horizon is below eye level, that will need to be demonstrated, as experience in nature suggests otherwise.
-
How can the dime obstruct your view of the elephant if the dime is too small to see and below your eye level?
For the first point, the dime may be too small to see, but it is still going to block light rays. Consider a tower on the horizon. Although the bricks which make up the tower are too small to see, they are still each undeniably blocking the light of the things behind it.
Yes, but we're talking about a dime blocking an elephant. Let's please stick with one bad example at a time.
For the second point, perspective places things at the horizon on your eye level.
Consider: Imagine we are on a very large dirt plane. We are 5 feet 10 inches tall. We look directly 90 degrees ahead at the horizon and see a dirt line. How can we see dirt at our eye level if we know that the dirt is 5 feet 10 inches below us?
The horizon and eye level can be quite subjective. For example, I live in a river valley with hills all around me. I have to raise my eye level well above horizontal to see the horizon at the top of a near by hill.
During the rapid ascent in the balloon the author saw new and distant lands reveal themselves from the stationary horizon. His perspective lines were constantly changing, revealing additional lands, while the horizon line remained stationary at eye level.
It could be argued that this should not have happened if the earth were a globe. The horizon should have been seen to drop rather than remain stationary.
Only if you don't understand how your eye is drawn to the horizon (whether it be above or below horizontal) rather than the other way around.
If you believe that the horizon is below eye level, that will need to be demonstrated, as experience in nature suggests otherwise.
Take a bubble level to the beach some time and use it to see if the horizon is exactly horizontal. Or try a theodolite app for your phone.
http://downloads.tomsguide.com/Theodolite-Droid,0301-55333.html
-
But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.
How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?
What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.
I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.
Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.
When I imagine what you are talking about I have to imagine light that does not travel in a straight line. Since light travels in a straight line I can only conclude that your assertion is incorrect.
-
But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.
How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?
What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.
I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.
Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.
When I imagine what you are talking about I have to imagine light that does not travel in a straight line. Since light travels in a straight line I can only conclude that your assertion is incorrect.
The light leaves the elephant and can't hit your eye because a dime is in the way. What is difficult to understand about that?
-
But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.
How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?
What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.
I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.
Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.
When I imagine what you are talking about I have to imagine light that does not travel in a straight line. Since light travels in a straight line I can only conclude that your assertion is incorrect.
The light leaves the elephant and can't hit your eye because a dime is in the way. What is difficult to understand about that?
The part where the dime is supposed to be on the ground blocking your view of the elephant rather than in your hand blocking your view of the elephant. Rather than having us imagine it, why don't you draw a scale diagram like he asked you to earlier?
-
The part where the dime is supposed to be on the ground blocking your view of the elephant rather than in your hand blocking your view of the elephant. Rather than having us imagine it, why don't you draw a scale diagram like he asked you to earlier?
I drew a diagram. Perspective put the dime at eye level. No evidence was presented by the opposition that the horizon is not at eye level.
-
But it is still just a trick of the eye. Tom needs to show the path of the light rays on a FE and how they can result in the effect he is describing. I sincerely doubt it is possible unless you start positing light that curves independently of refractive effects.
How is light curving when you hold a dime up to your eye and block out an elephant?
What I described is exactly the same, except it is perspective bringing the dime up to your eye instead of your arm, and it's happening further away.
I understand your position and requested you show the path of the light rays which make a plane appear to be a hill. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with understanding my request.
Imagine a light diagram of someone holding out a dime with their hand to obscure an elephant. Where does the light go and how does a small thing obscure a large thing?That is basically what would be drawn.
When I imagine what you are talking about I have to imagine light that does not travel in a straight line. Since light travels in a straight line I can only conclude that your assertion is incorrect.
The light leaves the elephant and can't hit your eye because a dime is in the way. What is difficult to understand about that?
The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.
-
The part where the dime is supposed to be on the ground blocking your view of the elephant rather than in your hand blocking your view of the elephant. Rather than having us imagine it, why don't you draw a scale diagram like he asked you to earlier?
I drew a diagram. Perspective put the dime at eye level. No evidence was presented by the opposition that the horizon is not at eye level.
Incorrect.
Well, on the one hand, the perspective vanishing point is always on the horizon which is always very far away. On the other hand, small things can become too small to see (vanish) long before they reach the horizon. The dime could reach its vanishing point at a few hundred feet while the vanishing point on the horizon is several miles away.
-
The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.
The dime might only block a small portion of a toe if the dime is right up against the elephant. But what if the elephant is 1000 feet behind the dime?
The part where the dime is supposed to be on the ground blocking your view of the elephant rather than in your hand blocking your view of the elephant. Rather than having us imagine it, why don't you draw a scale diagram like he asked you to earlier?
I drew a diagram. Perspective put the dime at eye level. No evidence was presented by the opposition that the horizon is not at eye level.
Incorrect.
Well, on the one hand, the perspective vanishing point is always on the horizon which is always very far away. On the other hand, small things can become too small to see (vanish) long before they reach the horizon. The dime could reach its vanishing point at a few hundred feet while the vanishing point on the horizon is several miles away.
Actually the Vanishing Point is a perspective term which is the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point
In graphical perspective, a vanishing point is a point in the picture plane that is the intersection of the projections (or drawings) of a set of parallel lines in space on to the picture plane. When the set of parallels is perpendicular to the picture plane, the construction is known as one-point perspective and their vanishing point corresponds to the oculus or eye point from which the image should be viewed for correct perspective geometry.
The way you are using it, as a definition of where things "vanish," has nothing to do with traditional perspective theory.
-
The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.
The dime might only block a small portion of a toe if the dime is right up against the elephant. But what if the elephant is 1000 feet behind the dime?
No, it still would not work. Try and make a scale diagram of the light rays and see if you can get it to work. Post it here when you are done. The light would all have to curve down towards the dime.
-
The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.
The dime might only block a small portion of a toe if the dime is right up against the elephant. But what if the elephant is 1000 feet behind the dime?
No, it still would not work. Try and make a scale diagram of the light rays and see if you can get it to work. Post it here when you are done. The light would all have to curve down towards the dime.
What do you mean "to scale"? Perspective is not "to scale." Distant elephants are tiny, and are easily obscured by dimes.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2i7nwbt.png)
Everything gets compressed and shrunken with distance to perspective. If the elephant is illuminating one elephant worth of light in its immediate vicinity, at 1000 feet away where the elephant is smaller than a dime, and those light rays are likewise shrunken. The area the elephant is illuminating is now smaller than a dime.
-
Actually the Vanishing Point is a perspective term which is the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge.
Then why do you refer to objects too small to see, yet are nowhere near the horizon, as having reached their vanishing point? Perhaps you should choose one definition for vanishing point and stick with it. It would make discussions like this a whole lot easier. For objects too small to see, perhaps saying that they have reached their limit of angular resolution would be more appropriate.
-
Actually the Vanishing Point is a perspective term which is the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge.
Then why do you refer to objects too small to see, yet are nowhere near the horizon, as having reached their vanishing point? Perhaps you should choose one definition for vanishing point and stick with it. It would make discussions like this a whole lot easier. For objects too small to see, perhaps saying that they have reached their limit of angular resolution would be more appropriate.
I don't believe I have ever used that term in that way, as a place where things "vanish". Please read over my original post where I brought it up.
Perspective brings the ground up to the level of your eye. Things on the vanishing point horizon are at eye level. This is fundamental to perspective.
The earth is not perfectly flat, and so any disturbances on the surface will become apparent where the land rises to meet the eye, creating a mass, even if imperceptive, for which far and distant bodies which might be a magnitude further away, can shrink behind.
There are actually multiple vanishing points at the horizon. Objects at differing heights will appear to reach the horizon either sooner or later than each other, non-consistently, as they are each traveling along their own perspective lines into their own vanishing points.. Consider a plane flying at 1000 feet and a plane flying at 40,000 feet. The higher plane will appear to descend into the earth slower than the lower plane. In fact, the lower plane will disappear into the horizon faster, long before the higher plane. We see from that example, which is undeniably apparent, that there are multiple sets of vanishing points which are height dependent. In the mountain example, the land below has simply reached its vanishing point before the mountain, and that is why the land at the horizon is at eye level, and the mountain beyond that is still above the level of the eye, remaining so until sufficient distance puts it into the horizon.
The descriptions above are the same as those in Earth Not a Globe, logically intuitive, and are consequence of the observations of our natural world.
-
The part where a dime on the ground is 0.5cms tall and never would intercede between an elephant and my eyes except possibly blocking a small portion of the elephants toe.
The dime might only block a small portion of a toe if the dime is right up against the elephant. But what if the elephant is 1000 feet behind the dime?
No, it still would not work. Try and make a scale diagram of the light rays and see if you can get it to work. Post it here when you are done. The light would all have to curve down towards the dime.
What do you mean "to scale"? Perspective is not "to scale." Distant elephants are tiny, and are easily obscured by dimes.
To scale as in everything in the picture is shrunken down by the same factor.
<snipped irrelevant photo>
Everything gets compressed and shrunken with distance to perspective. If the elephant is illuminating one elephant worth of light in its immediate vicinity, at 1000 feet away where the elephant is smaller than a dime, and those light rays are likewise shrunken. The area the elephant is illuminating is now smaller than a dime.
You keep putting the dime at eye level but that is a completely irrelevant case. You can address my points or you can concede that your version of optics cannot work, but this straw man has become absurd.
-
I have been very clear. I don't know what you mean about light having to curve at all. Perhaps you should provide an illustration. Draw a perspective diagram with the horizon at eye level, and then put a dime on that horizon. Show me where the light curves. If you cannot coherently describe your position I am afraid there is little left for me to discuss here.
-
I have been very clear. I don't know what you mean about light having to curve at all. Perhaps you should provide an illustration. Draw a perspective diagram with the horizon at eye level, and then put a dime on that horizon. Show me where the light curves. If you cannot coherently describe your position I am afraid there is little left for me to discuss here.
My position is perfectly clear: a six foot tall person looking at a 6 foot tall object at any distance cannot, in any circumstances, have that view completely blocked by a 0.5cm obstruction which is resting in the ground, given that the Earth is level. The same holds for any obstruction which is shorter than both the observer and the subject.
-
I have been very clear. I don't know what you mean about light having to curve at all. Perhaps you should provide an illustration. Draw a perspective diagram with the horizon at eye level, and then put a dime on that horizon. Show me where the light curves. If you cannot coherently describe your position I am afraid there is little left for me to discuss here.
My position is perfectly clear: a six foot tall person looking at a 6 foot tall object at any distance cannot, in any circumstances, have that view completely blocked by a 0.5cm obstruction which is resting in the ground, given that the Earth is level. The same holds for any obstruction which is shorter than both the observer and the subject.
The ground ascends as it recedes, until it gets to the level of your eye. Just look outside in an area with no immediate obstructions. It looks like we live on the inside of a bowel. How is that?
-
I have been very clear. I don't know what you mean about light having to curve at all. Perhaps you should provide an illustration. Draw a perspective diagram with the horizon at eye level, and then put a dime on that horizon. Show me where the light curves. If you cannot coherently describe your position I am afraid there is little left for me to discuss here.
My position is perfectly clear: a six foot tall person looking at a 6 foot tall object at any distance cannot, in any circumstances, have that view completely blocked by a 0.5cm obstruction which is resting in the ground, given that the Earth is level. The same holds for any obstruction which is shorter than both the observer and the subject.
The ground ascends as it recedes, until it gets to the level of your eye. Just look outside in an area with no immediate obstructions. It looks like we live on the inside of a bowel. How is that if the ground is flat?
So the Earth is concave? Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite? Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper? Why does the ascension of the Earth stop at the horizon and not continue? I don't know where you are going with this.
-
So the Earth is concave? Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite? Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper? I don't know where you are going with this.
Theodolite evidence is addressed in Earth Not a Globe.
What I am getting at is that you are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.
Here is an analogy which will put the matter to rest:
Imagine we have a large pair of dice the size of a crate, say waist high. There are 6 multicolored sides, but only two sides are visible to you. The green number 5 is the side facing you, and the red number 3 is the top side facing upwards. If you are standing 2 feet away over dice and look down you will see mostly the top red number 3. As you walk away from the dice into the distance, the dimensions of the dice will change, the 3 will become squished with perspective as the side 5 faces you more. Eventually, if you get far enough, the 3 will not be visible at all, and you will be looking solely at the green number 5 side.
That the green number 5 is facing you head on, and the red number 3 cannot be seen, nor any other side of the box, can only mean that the light rays from the green face are traveling parallel to your eye, despite the box being supposedly lower than eye level.
Another example, imagine we have a long large tube sitting on the floor. Looking down on the tube next to it we see its cylindrical exterior. But the is possible to walk such a distance away from the tube, away from one of the openings, until we can see inside of it. And if the tube were on the horizon we could see through it entirely, and if we were aligned perfectly with the opening it would appear to us as a ring on the horizon.
Anyone knows that bodies in the distance on the horizon will be viewed from their side, no matter how short or tall. This fact, or even the fact that the angles change at all, demonstrates beyond doubt that the static straight line "side view" pathway of light you are imagining in your head does not really apply, and must account for matters of perspective. The angles literally change as bodies grow distant from you, as illustrated with the multicolored box example above. The angles will change so much, until you you have rotated a body 90 degrees between the time you stood over it and when it got to the horizon.
This phenomena is plain and visible, applies to "straight rays of light," and cannot be described without perspective.
-
So the Earth is concave? Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite? Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper? I don't know where you are going with this.
Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.
What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement? Did anyone else corroborate this?
You are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.
Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that. Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards? Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.
Here is an analogy which will put the matter to rest:
Imagine we have a large pair of dice the size of a crate, say waist high. There are 6 multicolored sides, but only two sides are visible to you. The green number 5 is the side facing you, and the red number 3 is the top side facing upwards. If you are standing 2 feet away over dice and look down you will see mostly the top red number 3. As you walk away from the dice into the distance, the dimensions of the dice will change, the 3 will become squished with perspective as the side 5 faces you more. Eventually, if you get far enough, the 3 will not be visible at all, and you will be looking solely at the green number 5 side.
The fact that the green number 5 is facing you face on, and the red number 3 cannot be seen, nor any other side of the box, can only mean that the light rays from the green face are traveling parallel to your eye, despite the box being supposedly lower than eye level.
I agree with your analogy because the red 3 is becoming closer and closer to parallel as you recede from it, however this is not the same as the prairies masking the Rockies is it? So once again, you need to justify in some way how a very small obstruction, like a swell or a blade of grass or a dime apparently can obstruct something very tall like a light house or a mountain or an elephant with some sort of coherent description which should probably involve the light's path to the eye.
-
It looks like we live on the inside of a bowel. How is that?
Yes, it sometimes feels like that. ;D
-
So the Earth is concave? Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite? Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper? I don't know where you are going with this.
Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.
What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement? Did anyone else corroborate this?
You are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.
Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that. Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards? Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.
The lands are ascending via perspective, and this has physical consequences. Go back to the multicolored box example. The angle of the box changed in relation to you the further you got from it, until it was facing you head on. The angle of the light rays from the box changed as the distance was increased.
If something is now 90 degrees from the ground, straight ahead of you, those light rays are coming in parallel to the ground.
If we are in a room and hold a laser pointer up to the level of our eye and shine it at a wall at exactly 90 degrees from nadir (straight down), are those rays not arriving parallel to the ground? It stands therefore, that when looking across the horizon, if a body is 90 degrees from nadir, on top of the ascending earth horizon in the distance, those rays are also arriving parallel to the ground.
Your ideas that perspective does not apply to light are simply wrong. If something is straight ahead and facing you, its light is being broadcasted from that side you see.
Another example. Imagine we had a very large and powerful laser pointer resting on the ground. It is turned on and beaming a very narrow light beam right close along the surface. When we are standing next to the laser pointer we are looking down at it. But it is possible to get that laser pointer to shine on our face, directly into our eyes, by simply walking away from it (in the direction of the beam) until such a distance that the laser pointer is on the horizon and we are looking at it from its side. The straight beam of light, which is being broadcasted right near the flat surface, is now in our eyes. Since you agree with the multicolored box example, you must logically agree with this as well, which illustrates the matter succinctly.
-
So the Earth is concave? Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite? Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper? I don't know where you are going with this.
Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.
What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement? Did anyone else corroborate this?
You are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.
Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that. Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards? Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.
The lands are ascending via perspective, and this has physical consequences. Go back to the multicolored box example. The angle of the box changed in relation to you the further you got from it, until it was facing you head on. The angle of the light rays from the box changed as the distance was increased.
If something is now 90 degrees from the ground, straight ahead of you, those light rays are coming in parallel to the ground.
If we are in a room and hold a laser pointer up to the level of our eye and shine it at a wall at exactly 90 degrees from nadir (straight down), are those rays not arriving parallel to the ground? It stands therefore, that when looking across the horizon, if a body is 90 degrees from nadir, on top of the ascending earth horizon in the distance, those rays are also arriving parallel to the ground.
Your ideas that perspective does not apply to light are simply wrong. If something is straight ahead and facing you, its light is being broadcasted from that side you see.
Another example. Imagine we had a very large and powerful laser pointer resting on the ground. It is turned on and beaming a very narrow light beam right close along the surface. When we are standing next to the laser pointer we are looking down at it. But it is possible to get that laser pointer to shine on our face, directly into our eyes, by simply walking away from it (in the direction of the beam) until such a distance that the laser pointer is on the horizon and we are looking at it from its side. The straight beam of light, which is being broadcasted right near the flat surface, is now in our eyes. Since you agree with the multicolored box example, you must logically agree with this as well, which illustrates the matter succinctly.
I disagree with most of this. You seem to think that perspective is an actual physical effect rather than a consequence of the limitations of our sensory apparatus and cognitive processing. Please tell me I have misunderstood you. Please.
-
So the Earth is concave? Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite? Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper? I don't know where you are going with this.
Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.
What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement? Did anyone else corroborate this?
You are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.
Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that. Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards? Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.
The lands are ascending via perspective, and this has physical consequences. Go back to the multicolored box example. The angle of the box changed in relation to you the further you got from it, until it was facing you head on. The angle of the light rays from the box changed as the distance was increased.
If something is now 90 degrees from the ground, straight ahead of you, those light rays are coming in parallel to the ground.
If we are in a room and hold a laser pointer up to the level of our eye and shine it at a wall at exactly 90 degrees from nadir (straight down), are those rays not arriving parallel to the ground? It stands therefore, that when looking across the horizon, if a body is 90 degrees from nadir, on top of the ascending earth horizon in the distance, those rays are also arriving parallel to the ground.
Your ideas that perspective does not apply to light are simply wrong. If something is straight ahead and facing you, its light is being broadcasted from that side you see.
Another example. Imagine we had a very large and powerful laser pointer resting on the ground. It is turned on and beaming a very narrow light beam right close along the surface. When we are standing next to the laser pointer we are looking down at it. But it is possible to get that laser pointer to shine on our face, directly into our eyes, by simply walking away from it (in the direction of the beam) until such a distance that the laser pointer is on the horizon and we are looking at it from its side. The straight beam of light, which is being broadcasted right near the flat surface, is now in our eyes. Since you agree with the multicolored box example, you must logically agree with this as well, which illustrates the matter succinctly.
I disagree with most of this. You seem to think that perspective is an actual physical effect rather than a consequence of the limitations of our sensory apparatus and cognitive processing. Please tell me I have misunderstood you. Please.
It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.
-
Ok. Looks like we are done. we can't really have a productive conversation when you hold these beliefs. Sorry if that is harsh but I am not really interested in convincing someone that rails do not actually meet at the vanishing point.
-
You're the one screaming "illusion". I'm the one stating that where you see it, that's where it is, and that snipers can hit their marks without needing to aim below them.
Since you are claiming some sort of illusion is occurring, the burden is on you to support your beliefs.
-
It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.
Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.
-
It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.
Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.
That's right, there is no such thing as compensating for perspective. The sniper trusts that what he sees is a straight line path to his target.
It must be explained then, by Rama Set, why when we look into the distance we are looking into an illusion where things are not where they appear.
-
It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.
Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.
Right, there is no such thing as compensating for perspective. The sniper trusts that what he sees is a straight line path to his target.
It must be explained then, by Rama Set, why when we look into the distance we are looking into an illusion where things are not where they appear.
I think that Rama is still waiting for you to show how a dime on the ground can block someone's view of an elephant.
-
It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.
Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.
Right, there is no such thing as compensating for perspective. The sniper trusts that what he sees is a straight line path to his target.
It must be explained then, by Rama Set, why when we look into the distance we are looking into an illusion where things are not where they appear.
I think that Rama is still waiting for you to show how a dime on the ground can block someone's view of an elephant.
When the dime is on the horizon its light is coming in at 90 degrees above nadir to the observer's eyes. Multiple examples were given illustrating this.
Rama Set holds that this is some sort of illusion, and light that starts off low cannot end up at a high place, despite that the distant object's side perspective being pointed directly at the horizon it is targeting.
If objects are not truly where they appear, and are created by a psychological illusion, it must be explained why this is not accounted for by snipers or by anyone else in any other profession related to interacting with or transmitting to distant bodies on the horizon.
-
When the dime is on the horizon its light is coming in at 90 degrees above nadir to the observer's eyes. Multiple examples were given illustrating this.
Actually, a precision theodolite or precision level would tell a different story. If the ground is perfectly flat and level on a flat earth, then the dime will always be below eye level. However, if the dime is far enough away, then the angle would be so slight as to be unnoticeable with the naked eye.
Rama Set holds that this is some sort of illusion, and light that starts off low cannot end up at a high place, despite that the distant object's side perspective being pointed directly at the horizon it is targeting.
No, I don't think that's what he's saying.
If objects are not truly where they appear, and are created by a psychological illusion, it must be explained why this is not accounted for by snipers or by anyone else in any other profession related to interacting with or transmitting to distant bodies on the horizon.
I would guess that snipers don't account for it because snipers generally don't aim at targets on the horizon/
-
Okay sir, then why is it, that when standing on Mount Everest, or flying in a plane, that you cannot see all of the mountains in the world? Nothing would be hiding them, except the curvature of the Earth's surface, which it is.
-
Okay sir, then why is it, that when standing on Mount Everest, or flying in a plane, that you cannot see all of the mountains in the world? Nothing would be hiding them, except the curvature of the Earth's surface, which it is.
The limit of visibility in the standard atmosphere with perfectly clear air is about 300 km. This is determined by the extinction co-oefficient, caused by Rayleigh scattering, the same thing that makes the sky look blue.
So the further you can see, the more blue haze you get. Mountains in the far distance are a hazy blue.
the earth was flat, the horizon would be a hazy blue boundary between earth and sky. The fact that on a clear day we see a sharp horizon line caused by the earth's curvature is proof of a round earth.
-
It is a physical effect.
Just to clear things up...
If person A is looking toward the horizon, but is maintaining a level line of sight, does the ground physically slope upward, gaining elevation, to intersect person A's line of sight?
If another person "B" is at that distant point and looking toward person A, does the ground physically slope upward from them so also so that the horizon where person A is located is also intersecting their line of sight?
-
It is a physical effect.
Just to clear things up...
If person A is looking toward the horizon, but is maintaining a level line of sight, does the ground physically slope upward, gaining elevation, to intersect person A's line of sight?
If another person "B" is at that distant point and looking toward person A, does the ground physically slope upward from them so also so that the horizon where person A is located is also intersecting their line of sight?
Locally, the elevation the same. But from another frame of reference, the elevation is different. The distant lands are rising upwards. And if there were a series of puppies, lined up in a neat row to the eye level horizon, one could pick them off one by one by lining them up with the sight of a sniper rifle, or a laser weapon (if we want to ignore bullet drop issues), and each of those puppies will die, showing that the effect of an ascending horizon truly is physical.
-
Uphill both ways. Fascinating. So why didn't the BLE reveal this result?
-
the effect of an ascending horizon truly is physical.
So you are a concave Earth believer then instead of flat Earth. You could have just said so and saved everyone the trouble.
-
the effect of an ascending horizon truly is physical.
So you are a concave Earth believer then instead of flat Earth. You could have just said so and saved everyone the trouble.
No it is much stranger than that. The convexness of the Earth is directly proportional to the distance of the observer to a limit (the horizon) then it either flattens or descends. So two people at different distances from point A would see it at a different height. According to Tom, their perceptions are an actual reality. People walking can make the land rise and fall; it is a brave new world Tom is describing.