And the mountains?
« 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?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 09:09:25 PM by KevinIlProf »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2015, 11:20:31 PM »
The mountain is shrinking by perspective behind any imperfections in the earth's surface.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2015, 11:34:44 PM »
and also, in simple words, how do tides work?

The tides are discussed in Chapter 12 of Earth Not a Globe.

Rama Set

Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2015, 12:06:22 AM »
The mountain is shrinking by perspective behind any imperfections in the earth's surface.



I am not sure why that picture is there.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2015, 12:28:34 AM »
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.

Rama Set

Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2015, 12:49:54 AM »
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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2015, 12:55:37 AM »
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.

Rama Set

Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2015, 02:42:18 AM »
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?

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2015, 03:47:17 AM »
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.


*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2015, 04:06:10 AM »
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.
God is real.

Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2015, 05:28:37 PM »
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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2015, 05:32:11 PM »
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?

Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2015, 05:49:59 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 05:52:26 PM by KevinIlProf »

Rama Set

Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2015, 07:37:00 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2015, 08:56:51 PM »
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?

Rama Set

Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2015, 10:27:56 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2015, 02:28:09 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 08:29:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2015, 02:42:54 AM »
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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2015, 08:43:02 AM »
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.



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.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: And the mountains?
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2015, 12:27:36 PM »
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?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.