[Roger G]

Whilst driving home this evening at sunset, I took two photos 15 minutes apart. One was taken just after the sun went down and the other 15 minutes later. Both photos clearly show that the clouds are illuminated underneath by the sun which has set.

My questions is how could that happen if the sun is always 3000 miles above the surface of the earth and today the cloud base was no more than 2000ft?

Roger

[Tom Bishop]

See our answers in this discussion: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.0

[Curious Squirrel]

See our answers in this discussion: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.0

Ah yes, where you claim the clouds are being lit from the side and somehow this allows the entire underside to be lit up, and somehow not the entire side.

[Roger G]

See our answers in this discussion: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.0

Ok I just wasted 15 minutes reading the entire linked thread. It shows without any shadow of a doubt that your perspective nonsense just does not work and the Mount Ranier picture is absolute and conclusive proof of that, not that any more was needed. Perspective is an optical illusion as it does not and cannot change reality. Parallel railway lines remain parallel and do not meet, any more that people get smaller as they get further away, and a Sun at 3000 miles altitude cannot illuminate the underside of a cloud at 2000ft.

Case closed!

Roger

[Tom Haws]

See our answers in this discussion: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.0

I'm not sure why you linked the thread, but I thank you for it. It was most upwardly illuminating.

[Tom Haws]

I must add, Tom Bishop, that while your reasoning was not admirable, your patience was admirable indeed. Now, if I ever hear you say that "p" word again, I am going to have to school you. You keep using that word, and I don't think you know what it means. It's just an artistic technique for projecting the real world onto a plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)

If you have your own esoteric meaning, that does not help your case.

[devils advocate]

Ah but Tom's perspective has been described as "magic perspective" meaning that the dictionary definitions used in the (for want of a better world) REAL world cannot be applied to it. The reason is that Tom has rejected certain assumptions (from my understanding of his numerous posts on the subject) as there is a lack of proof-the railway lines example is the big one here, can YOU prove that two parallel lines will continue for INFINITY to appear to converge but never actually meet?

No, because you cannot follow these two lines for infinity within your finite lifetime. We all know that they would never meet but as we cannot ever show Tom the proof he can continue to use his own version of perspective.

This one's a lost cause guys, it's a philosophical riddle that can never be solved. As such Tom has moved out of science/observation/logic and rationality and taken a Faith stance. Can you convince a religious convert god does not exist?

Unfortunately Not.

[Roger G]

Ah but Tom's perspective has been described as "magic perspective" meaning that the dictionary definitions used in the (for want of a better world) REAL world cannot be applied to it. The reason is that Tom has rejected certain assumptions (from my understanding of his numerous posts on the subject) as there is a lack of proof-the railway lines example is the big one here, can YOU prove that two parallel lines will continue for INFINITY to appear to converge but never actually meet?

No, because you cannot follow these two lines for infinity within your finite lifetime. We all know that they would never meet but as we cannot ever show Tom the proof he can continue to use his own version of perspective.

This one's a lost cause guys, it's a philosophical riddle that can never be solved. As such Tom has moved out of science/observation/logic and rationality and taken a Faith stance. Can you convince a religious convert god does not exist?

Unfortunately Not.

You can use very basic maths to prove that railway lines don't meet at infinity. Stand on a long straight railway line and measure the distance between the rails, then travel along to the point where they appear to meet from a perspective point of view. Let's say 5 miles for arguments sake, then travel the same distance a few more times measuring the distance between the rails at each stop. After taking a few measurements, compare them and you will find that the reduction is separation is zero. Therefore over the finite distance you have travelled, although the tracks look as though they are converging, they are not. Simple maths will tell you that if you multiply zero by infinity. you will still have zero, so there is no meeting of the tracks possible. QED

Roger

[devils advocate]

True Roger! Myself and the sane world know it is true. Tom still wants proof that it happens infinitely. Now that's the rub......

[Tom Haws]

True Roger! Myself and the sane world know it is true. Tom still wants proof that it happens infinitely. Now that's the rub......

If Tom will drop the silly idea that perspective is a physical model instead of an artistic device for projecting reality onto a canvas, I can easily give him mathematical/geometric proof.

The angular resolution (angle of view) of a ball is inversely proportional to the arctangent of its distance from the eye. AKA theta = alpha/arctan(distance). Nothing ever disappears. But angular resolutions get small and distortions can obscure small and dim objects. Bright objects can overcome distortion.

The angular resolution (angle of view) of a ball varies upward with its size. AKA theta = arctan(size/distance). Large objects take a long distance to get apparently small (tiny angle of view).

Not difficult.

[Tom Bishop]

You are going to need to prove that the rules of perspective operate in accordance to that model, not just post some math from a continuous model where the perspective lines approach each other for infinity and declare it to be true.

[StinkyOne]

You are going to need to prove that the rules of perspective operate in accordance to that model, not just post some math from a continuous model where the perspective lines approach each other for infinity and declare it to be true.

Here is the thing, Tom, nothing is infinite. You don't use math, so infinity is meaningless. The proof that parallel lines don't touch is A) they aren't parallel if they do B) on the level we are talking about, trains aren't jumping off the tracks as they appear to draw closer.

Can we please revisit your comment about the Sun being on the horizon and that if you shot a magic projectile a little above the horizon, it would hit the Sun? I would love to debate that one.

[Tom Haws]

You are going to need to prove that the rules of perspective operate in accordance to that model, not just post some math from a continuous model where the perspective lines approach each other for infinity and declare it to be true.

Perspective does not operate anywhere but in the head of a human planning a drawing on a flat canvas. Perspective is as fake as a piece of currency, Tom. The sun, monkeys, and elephants do not obey or exist with respect to either one. There are no rules of perspective in the real world; only in the studio.