# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 3DGeek on September 19, 2017, 09:00:51 PM

Title: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on September 19, 2017, 09:00:51 PM
I'm not sure what the best title for this subject is...so I went with "altered perspective".

Tom keeps on waving this video at us - so this thread is an effort to explain (and debunk) that video.

The error it makes is to double-count the "perspective" effect.

I'm going to talk at the video at specific time points into it - so I suggest you open a second browser window with the video running in it and pause at the times I indicate to read my comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgbqFyiisQ

So listen through to around 1:50 and hit Pause.

The picture he's looking at shows that the further away the object gets, the smaller the angle to the ground it gets.  This is reasonable - light travels in straight lines.  If we extended the diagram off to the right with more and more equally spaced suns, the angle would get smaller and smaller - right?

At a billion miles, the angle would be a tiny fraction of a degree - at a trillion miles, still smaller - and at INFINITY the angle would be ZERO...or as close to zero as matters (the math term is "Infinitesimal" - one divided by infinity - not strictly zero - but essentially that).

This IS the standard law of perspective.   The further two parallel train tracks lead away from you, the narrower the perceived angle between them.  But even at a billion miles, they don't quite meet.  Only infinitely far from the eye to those train tracks come together.

OK - un-pause the video...stop it again at 2:07 or so.

He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".

But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero.   If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?

OK - un-pause again...stop again at 2:43.

So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

At 2:43, he's just added some suns moving downwards - but the sun isn't moving downwards in the real world - only in the eye of the viewer.   The original diagram is showing the path of the actual photons...the rays of light traveling from the sun to the viewer.

OK - so onwards to a picture of a wall...pause again at 3:27.

He's overlaid a side-on diagram onto a sloping wall...WTF?  How does that prove anything?  You can't just take a 2D side-on diagram and paste it onto a photograph taken at some random angle and demand that they line up perfectly!  What kind of a bullshit claim is *THAT*?

If he had blown up the diagram until it was about 20' long and 10' high, so the stick-figure's eye is level with the camera that took the photo - and pasted the giant diagram onto the wall...so both the diagram and the wall are at the same orientation...and THEN taken the photo...guess what would have happened?

Well...let's try that shall we?   It takes a bit of fancy 3D graphics work (that's what I do for a living)...but the result is this:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveOverlay.png)

It's hard to reproduce the exact camera angle of the original photo - and the low-res diagram has blurred out horribly because it has to be stretched to match the perspective in the photo - but you can see that the stickman's eyeline matches the eyeline in the photo - and the sun gets closer to the horizon in the same way that the strips on the wall do.

It's not perfect...but you should be able to see what I mean.

So if you could match the camera angles in the diagram and the wall...the result would be perfect...and of course if you do the reverse - and photograph the wall side-on and lay it on top of the diagram, that would be perfect too.

So this stage in his "proof" doesn't prove a darned thing - other than that the guy who made the video is clueless.

Watch again until 3:30.

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

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png)

Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?

Look again at the original picture of that wall:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective1.png)

Notice that behind the horizontal strip, there are a bunch of vertical supports, which are clearly equally spaced by whoever hung that wall?   This is VERY convenient for our proof.  (Thanks video guy!)

Suppose I put a red dot over the intersection of each vertical support and the "eye line".
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective2.png)

And above each one, I draw green dots for the position of the sun as 1pm, 2pm, 3pm, 4pm, 5pm and 6pm...just like he tried to do.  I'm allowing the sun to move the distance between two support strips every hour - which (in the real world) is a constant speed:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective3.png)

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

Another way to think about that is that perspective works in both the "X" and "Y" directions...but it also works in "Z":

Equally spaced pillars getting closer together as they get shorter.  The number of pillars needed before the height of the building is zero has to be infinite because every time you halve the height of the building, you double the number of columns you need:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Augustusstra%C3%9Fe_1_Dresden_Stallhof_Mai_2012.JPG/800px-Augustusstra%C3%9Fe_1_Dresden_Stallhof_Mai_2012.JPG)

This is WHY the FE sun can never set.

Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective4.png)

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

The problem is that he's guilty of PRECISELY the thing that he falsely accuses the original diagram of.  He's using a 2D representation fo the sun on a 3D photograph of a real world thing.

You simply can't do that.

You can prove your point with a 2D diagram - or you can prove it with a 3D photographic visualization - but the instant you mix the two - you screwed up.

So the video is at best misleading.   Clearly the guy who made it DOESN'T understand the first thing about how perspective works.

OK - watch again until 4:50.

Notice how at around 4:50 he cheats and adds more lines at the top of the screen than there really are...naughty!  And carefully STOPS drawing the lines at the bottom of the screen when they are in danger of revealing his lies.  Misleading!  Those lines at the top of the screen that are almost vertical...those don't happen in the real world do they?

So the video whitters on and at 5:25, he's back with his incorrect diagram of the sun's motion.

And out at 5:46, he again accuses someone of using non perspective lines on a perspective drawing - while, ironically, his own screwup of PRECISELY THAT is in the background!  Love it!

This explanation gets to crazy levels of insanity by 6:36 in the video as he overlays his 2D side-view drawing onto a perspective drawing and tries to extract information from that!

So...RE-BUNKED!  (is that even a word?)

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Obviously on September 22, 2017, 01:23:54 AM
What a great analysis, 3D! I've always thought this was common sense, but flerfers should be grateful that you went through all this work to explain it so thoroughly.

Can't wait to read Tom's comments :)
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 01:36:09 AM
Quote
He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".

But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero.   If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?

The drawing is not taking visual perspective into account. For instance, the entire concept of a Vanishing Point does not exist in that model. The model says that perspective lines can never meet. However, the Vanishing Point does exist; illustrating that this model is clearly lacking in several aspects of perspective and is not an accurate representation.

Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 22, 2017, 01:44:32 AM
Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.

At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 02:20:24 AM
Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.

At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.

The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.

Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 22, 2017, 02:24:45 AM
Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.

At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.

The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.

Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 02:26:29 AM
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?

I don't have that equation. The fact that the horizon exists and that model says that the horizon does not exist is a simple enough demonstration that the model is inaccurate to reality.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 22, 2017, 02:31:51 AM
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?

I don't have that equation. The fact that the horizon exists and that model says that the horizon does not exist is a simple enough demonstration that the model is inaccurate to reality.
That model isn't about the horizon. The horizon is an illusion of the eye. The model shows where the sun actually is. 20 degrees above the horizontal. Which means you need to figure out how perspective can not only account for that, but why it affects everything else too. Perspective is an artist tool, as is the vanishing point. Neither exist as physical realities.

So once again. Where is your proof/evidence that this all works the way you say it should and has to in order for your sun to set? Remember, the sun/moon can't be pointed to for your evidence here.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 02:46:31 AM
That model isn't about the horizon. The horizon is an illusion of the eye. The model shows where the sun actually is. 20 degrees above the horizontal. Which means you need to figure out how perspective can not only account for that, but why it affects everything else too. Perspective is an artist tool, as is the vanishing point. Neither exist as physical realities.

So once again. Where is your proof/evidence that this all works the way you say it should and has to in order for your sun to set? Remember, the sun/moon can't be pointed to for your evidence here.

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 03:26:44 AM
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:

Quote
Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective4.png)

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

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

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

The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance  (what is basically seen in the above picture).

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: inquisitive on September 22, 2017, 03:51:53 AM
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:

Quote
Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective4.png)

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

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

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

The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance  (what is basically seen in the above picture).

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: mtnman on September 22, 2017, 04:12:26 AM
The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 04:19:30 AM
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.

Who proved false the observation that high flying planes that fly over you move more consistently across the sky than very low planes that fly over you?

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 22, 2017, 04:19:51 AM
The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that the side-view model presented is inaccurate and thus cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.

Mathematics only reflects the model it is trying to describe. If the model is wrong, the math is wrong.

In order for 2 + 2 to equal 4, certain assumptions about the underlying model must be true. In some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: mtnman on September 22, 2017, 04:24:34 AM

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.

I'm not asking the question of a side view model or whatever was in that video. I'm asking about (1) your description of a sharp horizon, and (2) how the vanishing point exists in relation to the horizon, in your understanding.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 22, 2017, 05:09:22 AM
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.

Mathematics only reflects the model it is trying to describe. If the model is wrong, the math is wrong.

In order for 2 + 2 to equal 4, certain assumptions about the underlying model must be true. In some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
You're making assumptions that don't work based on wildly misunderstood idea of perspective somehow affecting the real world. It doesn't. Perspective is a visual tool to transcribe 3D space into a 2D view/plane. That's it. It doesn't affect the world, it doesn't work like that. Vanishing point is the same thing. It's an art construct to create a 3D effect.

The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world. It doesn't. Ergo, you need to show how perspective can make the sun's rays come in from 0 degrees, instead of 20 degrees. Oh wait, it doesn't physically affect the world. So it can't. But it's ok, I'm sure you'll come back saying I don't know what I'm talking about, because you need this to work in order to hang onto this idea that is all that's holding together your fragile ego.

Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 05:33:08 AM
The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world.

Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.

Quote
Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.

Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Perspective is not merely an "art concept". The horizon is seen in the real world; it's not purely artistic.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 22, 2017, 05:51:22 AM

Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view. (I'm with a phone right now, but I can easily do it later*). It's high school drawing theory, really.
* EDIT: actually, the diagram on Wikipedia is perfectly fine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#/media/File%3AHorizons.svg
The relative article explains also clearly the rest of your doubts

Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.
you keep saying this, without understanding the consequences. But perhaps we can go a different route. How does vision works, Tom?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Obviously on September 22, 2017, 06:41:46 AM
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.

Who proved false the observation that high flying planes that fly over you move more consistently across the sky than very low planes that fly over you?

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.

There is nothing wrong with the side view! Imagine you're in a town near the equator, a bit north of it, sitting in a chair facing south all day: the sun passes in an arc from east to west over the course of the day. According the FET, the sun should be seen moving in a straight line across the sky (or in a weird triangular path according to some of your videos) and magically disappearing out of view in a way that no one has ever documented or even seen (because it's not bright enough or something and ummm... perspective!). Yet this does not explain why we see only half the sun during sunset and sunrise.

Also, as others have mentioned, a horizon is something we see as the result of Earth's curvature. It's not an actual place, but a result of having depth of vision and living in a 3D world. The side view has a horizon too, just like any other view around the globe: it is always around you, wherever you are on our beautiful planet. This can only happen if you are standing on a giant sphere.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 22, 2017, 12:24:52 PM
I think I should elaborate on my previous comment, to avoid further misconceptions cluttering the discussion.
The accepted model for perspective (i.e. what's being used by anyone in the world outside this corner of the internet) does not assume a round earth. This is simple geometry, and the shape of the earth doesn't play any role.

The only assumptions, in order to draw any perspective, are that:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

That would mean that the horizon is a mere consequence of the geometry of the objects involved.

So, Tom, I understant that you are already on record accepting B).
Do you think that A) or C) are incorrect?

There isn't really anything more to perspective. As I said, it's something one learns at any art class.
cheers,
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 12:47:11 PM
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.

The horizon is not represented in that side view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.

However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 12:49:07 PM
There is nothing wrong with the side view!

Yes, there is something wrong. Under that side view model things would infinitely approach the horizon, but never touch it. The fact that a distant mountain can get above the level of the horizon line shows that the model is inaccurate in its assumptions and representations of reality.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 22, 2017, 12:55:16 PM
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.

The horizon is not represented in that size view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.

However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 22, 2017, 12:57:22 PM
The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world.

Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.
NOT when the model is about finding the location of the sun. The vanishing point is not a physical thing. The ground does not physically rise up to meet your eyes (right? Dear lord I hope we agree on this) it just seems that way. Therefore we can ignore it when attempting to find where something is actually located. As the sideview image does. It shows us the angle to the sun when it's setting, as that makes it vertically over a point about 6,000 miles away. What then has to be explained is how perspective accounts for, not only getting the sun 20 degrees closer to the ground, but how light is coming in at less than the actual angle it is above the horizontal. Again, unless you want to claim perspective is showing us where the sun actually is...somehow.

Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.

Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Perspective is not merely an "art concept". The horizon is seen in the real world; it's not purely artistic.
The horizon is a function of attempting to see a 3D world in 2D. Perspective and vanishing point are both artistic concepts to help do this in drawings. The 'exist' in the real world, but not in the same way. But how about you define them both for us then, hmm?
1) What is perspective?
2) What/where is the vanishing point?
3) What is the horizon?

Again, if perspective doesn't affect the actual position, the sideview model is perfectly fine to show us the location of the sun. You then have to show/explain how perspective adjusts the apparent location of the sun so that it can set, as well as give us light that comes in at less that it's true angle of 20 degrees.

There is nothing wrong with the side view!

Yes, there is something wrong. Under that side view model things would infinitely approach the horizon, but never touch it. The fact that a distant mountain can get above the level of the horizon line shows that the model is inaccurate in its assumptions and representations of reality.
This is complete babbling. The mountain shows nothing, as the mountain rises above the plane of the eye. You're focusing too much on this 'infinity' idea Tom. In reality something can and will get close enough that it will vanish far before infinity. But 20 degrees is NOT a negligible amount that meets the requirements for such a feat.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: StinkyOne on September 22, 2017, 01:00:18 PM
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view.

The horizon is not represented in that size view. According to the math of that side view it is impossible for anything to approach where the horizon is. This is the argument given for why the sun cannot set. It is impossible for anything to meet the horizon under that model.

However; we know that things do get to the horizon. It is possible for a mountain to sit on the horizon, which is impossible under that model. Under that model the top of a mountain should never get above the horizon line.

Maybe it is my confusion, but you seem to bounce back and forth between a real, physical change in the world and the more accurate optical illusion description of perspective. If you're looking out over a large body of water, there is a very clear horizon. It is caused by the curvature of the Earth. I can see it from my office. Very crisp, very clear. It is not at the limit of my vision at all.

The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 01:04:21 PM
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?

I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.

The diagram you posted seems to be a Round Earth model explanation for a horizon which we are not talking about.

The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.

The ground does rise to the horizon, overhead bodies like planes do descend to the horizon, and it is possible for the tops of mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: StinkyOne on September 22, 2017, 01:08:32 PM
The side view doesn't need to show the sun on the horizon for a flat Earth because it is never there. It is never any closer to the ground. There is no need to model it. It is always 3k miles up. The ground never rises, the sun never dips.

The ground does rise, the sun does dip, and mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.

Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change? If the ground rises and the sun dips, how is the sun not hitting the Earth? Clearly the sun dips below the horizon. Tom, the ground APPEARS to rise, the sun APPEARS to dip. That is the illusion part of perspective. Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains. We should keep this conversation over a body of water which is the least altered horizon.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2017, 01:12:55 PM
Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change?

Once again; perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, which is the determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Quote
Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.

Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to stick out of the horizon line. It is impossible for the mountain to even get to the horizon line.

This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 22, 2017, 01:13:32 PM
did you actually read the rest of the comment? Did you see the diagram I linked where the horizon in the side view is *clearly* indicated?

I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.

The diagram you posted seems to be a Round Earth model explanation for a horizon which we are not talking about.

Those are not different, they are both correct! It's exactly the same geometry, same angles, same light travelling in straight lines, applied in the same way.
If you use it on a round earth sideview, you can easily see how mountains can sit on the horizon.

The diagram of the OP doesn't represent a round earth, because it's the same geometry applied on a flat earth. We are trying to explain you how perspective works, because you are either clueless, or pulling our collective leg.

Let's try again with a different angle.
How does vision works?

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 22, 2017, 01:32:00 PM
Quote
Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.

Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to get above the horizon line. It is impossible for anything on the ground to even get to the horizon line; let alone intersect it.

This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.
I'm gonna stop you right there Tom, because you are completely incorrect. Now stop pretending the model is saying things it doesn't. It ONLY talks about the actual position of the sun and it's relation to the observer. Since perspective doesn't affect the actual position of objects, perspective is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: StinkyOne on September 22, 2017, 01:33:34 PM
Ok, so now you're saying there is a physical change?

Once again; perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, which is the determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Quote
Mountains do rise above the horizon because they are mountains.

Under the mathematical model we are talking about (the one in the OP) it is impossible for the top of a mountain to get above the horizon line. It is impossible for anything on the ground to even get to the horizon line; let alone intersect it.

This shows that the model is faulty. It does not reflect reality.

So draw a mountain on it. The ground plane is actually irrelevant. If the ground doesn't physically rise, the only thing changing is the distance of the sun from the observer. (assuming the sun doesn't physically get any lower in the sky) You can create a triangle by drawing a line directly up 3k units from the observers eye, make a 90 degree turn and go out an arbitrary distance to the sun (6k units in this example), and then draw a straight line back to the observers eye. Draw the ground as a flat plane or slaps some mountains on it. (no more then 6 units!!) It doesn't matter. If the line from the sun to the observers eye is not blocked, the sun is above the horizon. Keeping the ground plane flat is for simplicity, not to model reality.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 22, 2017, 06:38:25 PM
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on September 22, 2017, 07:13:43 PM
I read your comment. The side view presented in the OP, and which is supposedly "correct", does not allow the tops of mountains to get above the horizon line. Your comment that the side view diagram is accurate is not true. Mountains can get above the horizon line; therefore the side view diagram in the OP does not accurately reflect reality.

Thank you Tom - you just helped to disprove the flat earth!

In a FLAT earth - you're right, the peak of a mountain cannot ever be on the horizon...and my diagram elegantly demonstrates that.

In a ROUND earth - my diagram has to have a curved "ground" - and in that situation, the top of a mountain can indeed be on the horizon (or below it).

I do not claim my diagram proves that the earth is flat...to the contrary, it disproves it...which does not make it "wrong" - it makes it "right".

Quote
The ground does rise to the horizon, overhead bodies like planes do descend to the horizon, and it is possible for the tops of mountains do get above the horizon line. Therefore that must be modeled. If you present a model and it does not have any of those things then it is an invalid representation of empirical reality.

Your claim that "the ground rises to the horizon" is an oft-stated thing in FET - but it's not true.   If you fly a military fighter airplane with a heads-up-display, you see that the "artificial horizon" is considerably higher than the actual horizon at high altitudes - yet perfectly aligned with it at sea level.

Your personal *feeling* about the horizon (and that reported by some FE'er mountain climbers I saw someplace) is hard for you to demonstrate because you can't tell whether your head (or your camera) is horizontal when you take your observation.    We use the same root word for "Horizon" and "Horizontal" because at the normal altitude range over which humans live, you can hardly tell the difference.

Planes appear to approach the horizon due to perspective - but to disappear over it requires the Earth to be curved (which it is - and that's why that happens).

My model is NOT a representation of reality (in which the Earth is round) - it is, however a perfectly good representation of YOUR claims to the Flat Earth!  So your complaints about it are refuting your very own Flat Earth theory!

You see - if you dispute it on grounds that it doesn't match reality - but FAIL to dispute it's factual basis (ie where the sun is, and light traveling in straight lines) then what you're doing
is proving that a diagram of how light must travels on the flat earth is inconsistent with reality...ergo, the Earth Isn't Flat.

So thanks very much for helping out with the disproof of FET!
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on September 22, 2017, 07:30:23 PM
Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Yes - at infinity.

Quote
The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.
That's only a problem for your flat earth.  In a round earth, the railroad tracks curve over the horizon before they "meet".   God knows what they do on a flat earth....I guess they just disappear into the haze...I don't have to defend what happens in a flat earth model...and the FACT that it conflicts with reality is your problem.

Quote
Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.

Well, no - that model is correct - things "intersect the horizon" because of Earth curvature.

In a FLAT earth, you're right - a horizon should not exist.  You  only have to invoke this funky perspective thing BECAUSE you insist that the world is flat.

So to be clear:

* Your objections do not apply if the Earth is round...neither does my diagram.

* If the earth is flat then your objections to the diagram are entirely valid...and YOU need to explain to US what's wrong with it...because the only three assumptions it makes are:

a) The earth is flat.
b) Light travels in straight lines.
c) The sun is a long way above the ground.

Because (as you VERY correctly say) the diagram doesn't agree with reality - then one of those three assumptions I made when I drew it must be incorrect.

It is my belief that (a) is incorrect.   You claim to believe that (a), (b) and (c) are all 100% correct...but then you complain that it doesn't agree with reality...YEAH!  THAT's WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU - AND NOW YOU AGREE!

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: xenotolerance on September 23, 2017, 03:39:46 AM
That's been the true irony of this whole back and forth... Tom has been pointing out that the flat earth explanation for the way the sun sets does not and can not match observations. Just, over and over again, seemingly oblivious to it.

The crux of the argument is here:

Quote from: 3DGeek
* If the earth is flat then your objections to the diagram are entirely valid...and YOU need to explain to US what's wrong with it...because the only three assumptions it makes are:

a) The earth is flat.
b) Light travels in straight lines.
c) The sun is a long way above the ground.

Because (as you VERY correctly say) the diagram doesn't agree with reality - then one of those three assumptions I made when I drew it must be incorrect.

There's still the '3rd person diagrams can't model it correctly' cop-out, so I thought of a 1st-person way to model a sunset on flat earth. I don't have a diagram, for lack of preparation and resources, but maybe one can be made or found.

+ Lie down at one end of an infinitely long, very tall hallway. The floor and ceiling are perfectly straight, forever.
+ Directly above your head is a light fixture on the ceiling, 10 meters high. The viewing angle is 90 degrees, straight up.
+ Every ten meters along the ceiling is another light, identical to the first. The viewing angle decreases for each light in proportion to its distance away.
+ What are the angles from your eyes to the light on the ceiling that are 30m, 300m, and 3 km away?
+ How far along the ceiling is the closest light for which the viewing angle is 0 degrees?

For those paying attention at home, you will notice that this is the same exercise as the sideways diagrams, no surprise. But answering these questions will be revealing; the proportions of the "3000 mile high, 6000 miles away" sunset are met at the light that is two steps away, 20m out and 10m up, twice as far as it is high; the viewing angle is 18 degrees. For reference, try this at home: Find a doorframe that has two door-height-lengths available on the floor in front of it. Lie down on your back, so your toes are the horizon facing towards the doorframe, and your head is at the 2:1 position. Look at the top of the door... huzzah, it's an 18 degree viewing angle!

[I double checked my math - it's actually 26 degrees (https://www.triangle-calculator.com/?what=&q=a+%3D+10%2C+c+%3D+20%2C+B+%3D+90&submit=Solve)]

Anyway... the angle for 300 meters is 2 degrees, and for 3000 it is 0.2 degrees. And because light travels in straight lines, these proportions remain true. 10 up, 3000 away... 1:300.

So on a flat earth, in order for the viewing angle from the ground to get within a fraction of a degree i.e. close to the horizon, given that the sun is 3000 miles high, it must then be 900,000 miles away. How far away is Baghdad from New York, again?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 23, 2017, 04:02:59 AM
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.

Thank you Tom - you just helped to disprove the flat earth!

In a FLAT earth - you're right, the peak of a mountain cannot ever be on the horizon...and my diagram elegantly demonstrates that.

In a ROUND earth - my diagram has to have a curved "ground" - and in that situation, the top of a mountain can indeed be on the horizon (or below it).

I do not claim my diagram proves that the earth is flat...to the contrary, it disproves it...which does not make it "wrong" - it makes it "right".

If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.

You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.

Quote from: 3DGeek
Your claim that "the ground rises to the horizon" is an oft-stated thing in FET - but it's not true.   If you fly a military fighter airplane with a heads-up-display, you see that the "artificial horizon" is considerably higher than the actual horizon at high altitudes - yet perfectly aligned with it at sea level.

The higher you go the farther the horizon would be, but unfortunately you do not listen very well. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. At extreme altitudes, such as from a military fighter jet in your example, you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere.  The true "horizon" at very high altitudes is farther than what you see.

You can tell that this is happening because at high altitudes where the artificial horizon on a plane's instrumentation is above the observable horizon, the horizon is no longer sharp or defined, and is seen as a gradual gradient. It should be no surprise, then, under such conditions basically absent of a horizon that the artificial horizon would be above the level of the land.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 23, 2017, 05:51:10 AM
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.
Ah, but you see we're not attempting to make a model that fits the flat Earth. We're checking to see if the flat Earth can even exist in a way that reflects reality. What this is showing us is the impossibility of sunset on a flat Earth, as described by the viewing angles we know exist. We are NOT attempting to have this model FE. We are attempting to see if the Earth could even BE flat. If the reality doesn't match the number, there is no flat Earth. YOU have to show how perspective or the horizon, or what have you, makes up for the sun ACTUALLY being at a 20 degree angle when it should be at a zero degree angle.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: UzZIBiKeR on September 23, 2017, 06:12:12 AM
Wrong. The flat earth logo itself shows an entire earth bathed in sunlight. Lets try this for a change. How big is the diameter of the earth? Answer approximately 8,000 miles. How big is sun's diameter? Approximately 1,000,000  miles. The earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun so by scientific measurements the sun cannot be a flashlight on the earth but must cover the earth entirely at the same time. If not there would be no seasons as the earth's axis, which is 23.5 off center. The flashlight shows that the little sun can only cover part of the earth at a time meaning the rest of the earth would be freezing. There would also be no need for time zones as the sun comes around and goes away without causing any temperature differentials. By the way where is Antarctica. It is a continent with a very large land mass that is weighted down by ice. Your logo and thought processes state that if we don't like it it doesn't exist. Laying down in a hallway is not laying down with the earth. If in fact the earth was flat everyone would see the same stars at the same time overnight forever. Why doesn't this happen? I leave you to figure out the last falsehood in your prehistoric reasoning.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: devils advocate on September 23, 2017, 07:57:56 AM
Its OK now this genius has arrived we'll have this case closed in a jiffy (he was in the navy you know). UzZIBiKeR dude you are truly our saviour! PS read the Wiki.......
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 23, 2017, 09:06:11 AM
If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.

You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.

As already stated, the model proposed is simple geometry, basic drawing art class, and it indeed allows for an horizon. It's how our vision works, it's not a model for anything specific. The shape of the earth doesn't matter.

It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with those assumptions?

If you do, then the fact that shoehorning it on a flat earth doesn't match observation should tell you that, in fact, the earth is not flat. (As a matter of fact, if you apply it to a round earth, it matches perfectly  your beloved observation of horizons and mountain sitting on it)

If you don't, then elaborate.

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on September 23, 2017, 01:50:28 PM
Its OK now this genius has arrived we'll have this case closed in a jiffy (he was in the navy you know). UzZIBiKeR dude you are truly our saviour! PS read the Wiki.......
Yikes!  Tom said that all members of the Navy are "untrustworthy murderers" - and when asked to retract that statement, he simply double-downed on it...so be careful whom you support UzZIBiKeR!

I agree though - just jumping into a subtly reasoned debate with RET assumptions that the FE'ers don't agree with is kinda pointless.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on September 23, 2017, 02:10:17 PM
We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.

Yes, Tom - you are 100% correct.  But the FE model that you propose doesn't "include the capability of a horizon" (without bending light)...and you, personally, are "designing a Flat Earth model" that does not include the capability of a horizon.  In fact, you say so yourself further down this very same post that I'm quoting!   You have to rely on atmospheric attenuation in order to explain why I can't see Mount Everest glowing brightly above the horizon at midnight from my back yard here in Texas.   That's because you could otherwise see forever across a flat, infinite plane.

Quote
If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.

You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.

Huzzah!  Tom finally gets it!

The Flat Earth model certainly doesn't include the possibility of a horizon...so it's WRONG..  Quod erat demonstrandum...game, set and match.

Quote
The higher you go the farther the horizon would be, but unfortunately you do not listen very well. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. At extreme altitudes, such as from a military fighter jet in your example, you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere.  The true "horizon" at very high altitudes is farther than what you see.

You can tell that this is happening because at high altitudes where the artificial horizon on a plane's instrumentation is above the observable horizon, the horizon is no longer sharp or defined, and is seen as a gradual gradient. It should be no surprise, then, under such conditions basically absent of a horizon that the artificial horizon would be above the level of the land.

It's convenient that you mention this - so you're admitting that in your FE world, the "horizon" can't be seen because it's fuzzed away by the atmosphere.  YOUR MODEL DOESN'T HAVE A WELL DEFINED HORIZON...which is why you use the words:  "you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere."

When you view the earth from sufficiently high altitudes, the atmosphere is so thin that it doesn't block much light and you can see the horizon very clearly...and it doesn't stretch off to infinity.  You can't see a brightly lit Mount Everest from a high altitude balloon over Texas either.

This is what we've been telling you!

It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of!   If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

MY MODEL is of a round earth - and the horizon is just the point where the curvature of the globe is at a tangent to my sight line...my model works just fine with the diagrams I draw - and there is a horizon that you can see clearly on a clear day.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: xenotolerance on September 24, 2017, 01:55:14 AM
Repeating for emphasis:
It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

This is a classic proof by contradiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction).

1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)

badaboom, realest globe in the room
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2017, 02:26:14 AM
Repeating for emphasis:
It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

This is a classic proof by contradiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction).

1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)

badaboom, realest globe in the room

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: xenotolerance on September 24, 2017, 02:28:19 AM
Perspective, being defined by direct observation, is the same regardless of the shape of the Earth.

also: In this thread, those assertions are taken from flat earth literature, and some directly from you. so if you have contention with those assertions, take it up with yourself

double also: Please respond to 3DGeek's post, if you have the inclination to continue the thread. I intended for my comment to be something of an expansion or clarification on his.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2017, 08:13:08 AM
Repeating for emphasis:
It's *YOUR* model that I'm drawing diagrams of! If the diagram doesn't work then it's because YOUR MODEL is broken.

This is a classic proof by contradiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction).

1) Assume the Earth is flat. (Assume !P)
2) Assert dimensions, distance, and elevation of the sun, and do math to figure out how it should appear in observation. (Assume Q)
3) Observe that the calculations do not match reality. (Observe !Q)
4) Therefore, the Earth is not flat. (Q & !Q, quod est absurdum; therefore P)

badaboom, realest globe in the room

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
'Perspective' does not behave, it's simply about describing things in the distance.

How are you getting on comparing your observations with timeanddate.com?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 24, 2017, 08:48:49 AM

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
Quote
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with these assumptions?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on September 24, 2017, 05:11:45 PM
Read this line carefully everyone:

If a light ray starts off at the sun (around 3,000 miles above the ground) - and if it travels in a straight line - and if it ends up going horizontally into our eyes  (or into a pinhole camera) to produce a sunset - THEN the Earth cannot be flat.

Put yet more simply:

The FET sun, the horizon and our eyes do not lie in a straight line - but photons travel in straight lines and we DO observe sunsets - hence FET is impossible.

We don't have to get tied up in knots about perspective...whatever funky arguments Tom wishes to make...no matter what perspective does or how it works, the photons have to travel from A to B in a straight line - and to get from the sun down to the level of the horizon and thence into our eyes - the photons would have to curve or to have a kink in their path.  (The fact of the under-lit clouds at sunset actually means that the photons would have to reverse direction and head UPWARDS - so it's even worse than that in reality).

Ergo - one of the predicates in that first sentence has to be incorrect.  Yet, as we've seen:

• Tom agrees that light travels in straight lines.
• Tom agrees that sunsets do happen.
• Tom claims (although he seems to be having a hard time saying the actual words) that the sun is at a physical "location" around 3,000 miles above the ground.[\li]
• Tom claims that the Earth is flat.

One of those four statements MUST be incorrect - it cannot be otherwise.  The first two are really self-evident.  Which leaves the last two.

So we may deduce that either the FET model of the sun maintaining a more or less constant altitude is wrong (which would require a MAJOR rewrite of FET) - or FET itself is wong.

Tom is simply unable to answer the simplest of questions in this thread without unravelling the entire tissue of untruths and misapprehensions that is the flat earth theory.  Several of us have asked more or less the same simple questions.  None of us has gotten an answer to those questions without evasions and flim-flam.

Since Tom has gone SO many days - and replied evasively so many times - we KNOW that he knows that he dare not answer these very simple questions.

Guys - the debate is over.   Tom Bishop can no longer prove the flat earth theory - even in his own mind.  Not a single one of his Flat-Earther buddies are daring to touch this thread to come to his aid - which suggests that either they've been convinced - or that they never really were Flat Earthers in the first place.

Of course it would be nice if he'd "man up" and answer these questions (which we already know the answer to) so we can execute the coup de grace...and it would be better still if he said something  like "You know what...I guess we don't know how sunsets work in the Flat Earth" - or better still admit that the evidence demonstrates that the Earth is round.

But those things are unlikely to happen.

He's probably going to blather on about "perspective" while refusing to explain how photons from an object that's 3000 miles above the ground can wind up skimming across the horizon and into our eyes while travelling in a straight line.

I don't know why he thinks this is a convincing argument...but it's clearly wrong.  Numerous other disproofs that have been offered on this forum have also gone un-refuted.  This one may be the simplest to understand.

So where do we go from here?   It's taken a lot of different arguments over the past few months to find the one that's simple enough to provide a one-sentence proof.  It feels like the RET case is now comprehensively proven.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2017, 05:38:57 PM

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
Quote
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with these assumptions?

You have no knowledge on how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?

Read this line carefully everyone:

If a light ray starts off at the sun (around 3,000 miles above the ground) - and if it travels in a straight line - and if it ends up going horizontally into our eyes  (or into a pinhole camera) to produce a sunset - THEN the Earth cannot be flat.

If that space of 3,000 miles is merged to one point, and that point is level with our eye, than it makes perfect sense that the photons travel along that path and reach our eye. The point is 90 degrees from zenith in its orientation around us; therefore the light is approaching the eye from that 90 degree angle.

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

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

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

The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2017, 06:10:42 PM
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?

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

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

The only true rules come from the universe itself, and it is observed that a horizon exists. If your hypothetical rule list can't comprehend with that when you attempt to make a model, then tough. It's wrong.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 24, 2017, 06:46:57 PM
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?

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

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

The only true rules come from the universe itself, and it is observed that a horizon exists. If your hypothetical rule list can't comprehend with that when you attempt to make a model, then tough. It's wrong.
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat. The diagram showing the sun is 20 degrees above the horizon (and thus light should come in from that direction) isn't based on anything but the distances 'known' to the sun upon a flat plane at that time. It's literally only in your FE idea that these rules don't work. So once again, where is your evidence that perspective bends light? Because that's what you're claiming here in reality.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 24, 2017, 06:52:16 PM

And how do you know that your assumptions are correct in Step 2 if you have no knowledge on how perspective should behave on a Flat Earth?
You keep repeating this, but all the diagrams you see are not dependent on the shape of the earth! Perspective is a consequence of the way we perceive things. For the third time
Quote
It's based on 3 assumptions:
A) we (and cameras) perceive the world by means of light being emitted or reflected by objects.
B) light travels in straight lines.
C) the actual positions of the objects and observer are known.

Do you agree with these assumptions?

You have no knowledge how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?

Distance has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Which of those assumptions you disagree with, or you feel is unwarranted?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2017, 07:11:11 PM
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.

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

Quote
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.

Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.

Quote
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.

The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 24, 2017, 07:13:55 PM
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2017, 07:16:37 PM
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?

Watch the video in the OP.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 24, 2017, 07:19:20 PM
The real side-view scene would look different, would properly account for the perspective all objects experience of the orientation of bodies around them, and would not involve curving light rays.
that's a really neat idea! Why don't you draw it?

Watch the video in the OP.
I did, it's an awful mess. No you draw one with all the correct quotes. While you are at it, please answer my more serious question about assumptions :)
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 24, 2017, 09:14:07 PM
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.

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

Quote
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.

Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.

Quote
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.

The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.
A) Cameras operate using the same system of vision we do. They are equipped to 'see' the world in much the same way we do, because we know of no other way to view the world in a visual manner.
B) Railroad tracks don't change by 20 degrees. The model perfectly predicts where the tracks will be in a given image based on their distance from the observer. Try again.
C) The sideview model isn't based on any assumption about the Earth. It's to determine where an object physically is. Once again, without a mechanism to move the sun 20 degrees lower than it physically is, you can't have sunlight coming in at 0 degrees or less.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2017, 10:47:01 PM
A) Perspective is not a property of the universe. It's an emergent property of our eyes and how we view things. "All object experience perspective" is patently false.

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.
P2. Cameras are objects.
C. Objects experience perspective.

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

Quote
B) Show us your evidence that perspective can account for a change of 20 DEGREES in the sun. Reminder: Neither the sun nor the moon are proofs for this.

Railroad tracks in a perspective scene are not an infinite distance away when they meet the horizon. This shows that your model is wrong.

Quote
C) Your "rules for perspective" are based on the assumption the Earth is flat.

The existence of a horizon is based on REALITY. If you attempt to create a model of the earth of any shape you need to have the capability of a horizon. if you cannot do this then your model is insufficient and does not properly account for all variables involved.
You are still clinging onto your very own definition of perspective.  It's not clear what you are trying to prove.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: mtnman on September 25, 2017, 12:11:40 AM
You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?

This perspective argument is crazy. Is this whole idea just a big joke? I can't tell any more.

Perspective lines can't ever touch because they are NOT REAL. Perspective means, how we perceive something. It doesn't mean how it is in reality.

I'll stick to the railroad track argument because it is so simple. If you stand between the rails, the rails appear to become closer in the distance. It has nothing to do with the horizon. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch? Because for these angles to meet the rails would touch. And regardless of their meeting or not, no matter how far down these tracks, to the horizon, to the tree line, to half way up the picture, the rails are the same distance apart. I know this because the trains that travel the tracks don't shrink as they move away from us. Even if it looks like they do.

And yes we all believe in the horizon. It's where the Earth appears to meet the sky. It happens because the Earth is round and slopes gradually away. These arguments giving magic properties to "perspective" just don't make sense.

Reference the picture of the tracks. You look down them and see rails moving at angles getting closer. If someone else was standing 300 feet down those same tracks and looked back at you, what would they see? Rails moving at angles getting closer. So how can either perspective be said to have anything to do with the reality of the rails?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: devils advocate on September 25, 2017, 08:49:01 AM
What does Tom really know about perspective?! In EVERY other instance when we watch an object get further away it gets smaller, and if it is in the sky it gets lower, towards the horizon.

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

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

This whole sunset thread proves way beyond reasonable doubt that the FE position of the sun does not work. It does not fit with the empirical evidence presented.
The pinhole camera proof that the angle of sunset doesn't work on FE is pretty absolute.
The fact that at sunset the sun disappears from the bottom up, not by the whole circle shrinking proves it is not 3,000 miles up.
Tom your answers above reek of desperation, but why fight it anymore. The FE model of the sun does not work. Make a new one.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on September 25, 2017, 11:53:52 AM
You have no knowledge on how perspective behaves over long distances. No one has ever demonstrated or proven that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity and never touch. You have no idea what would happen. How can you make these assumptions?
Quote
If that space of 3,000 miles is merged to one point, and that point is level with our eye, than it makes perfect sense that the photons travel along that path and reach our eye. The point is 90 degrees from zenith in its orientation around us; therefore the light is approaching the eye from that 90 degree angle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
The actual path is IRRELEVENT

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

So again, I ask you:

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

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

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

So...stop evading and diverting - just answer those two simple questions.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Sushi on October 02, 2017, 10:51:06 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk

Hi, everyone.
I didn't want to start a new thread so I posted here.
I am new here.I have found an interesting video about horizon and curvature.
This is a Turning Torso building (190m tall).
Building works as a scale.The video shows building from different distances ranges (25-50 km).
It shows when you zoom, some parts of the building are not visible due to the curvature of the earth.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on October 02, 2017, 12:08:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk

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

View-over-water experiments are difficult because you have perspective and earth curvature (or not, depending on which side of the debate you're on) - and close to the water, you get mirages and such which confuse where the precise horizon line is.  It's very difficult to do this accurately - so the results are unconvincing.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: TomInAustin on October 02, 2017, 05:25:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk

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

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

Agree.   The distance and lack of map is the conclusive proof.   There is zero ambiguity in that argument.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 03, 2017, 08:33:02 AM
The picture he's looking at shows that the further away the object gets, the smaller the angle to the ground it gets.  This is reasonable - light travels in straight lines.  If we extended the diagram off to the right with more and more equally spaced suns, the angle would get smaller and smaller - right?
Correct, the angle relative to us would, I don't see where this could go with perspective, but lets see.
Quote
At a billion miles, the angle would be a tiny fraction of a degree - at a trillion miles, still smaller - and at INFINITY the angle would be ZERO...or as close to zero as matters (the math term is "Infinitesimal" - one divided by infinity - not strictly zero - but essentially that).
No, that is not how it works in terms of perspective.
You have optical angular resolution which greatly depends on wavelengths of light correlating with optics aperture. Using 'frames', which represent our field of vision, they decrease size at farther distances until they indistinguishable in terms of distance from the eye.
(http://www.olejarz.com/arted/perspective/images/intro.gif)
The black rectangles would be the frames.
Real world example:
(http://picturejournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/vanishing_point-2-1024x679.jpg)
Quote
This IS the standard law of perspective.

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

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

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png)

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

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

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

You simply can't do that.
Yes you can, it is for simplicity of the concept.
Quote
You can prove your point with a 2D diagram - or you can prove it with a 3D photographic visualization - but the instant you mix the two - you screwed up.
There isn't an inherent difference in terms of visual representations. So, I don't know what you are implying here.
Quote
Clearly the guy who made it DOESN'T understand the first thing about how perspective works.
Exactly what you showed, misunderstanding of perception.
Quote
So...RE-BUNKED!  (is that even a word?)
Not at all, you failed to debunk or successfully counter anything here and relied on false concepts.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on October 03, 2017, 09:06:55 AM
The angle is decreasing because of how distances and wavelengths of light hit our eyes or however you are viewing it, the geometric angle indeed plays a role but the angle is not our perception.
how, pray tell, does our vision works?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on October 03, 2017, 01:03:43 PM
Not at all, you failed to debunk or successfully counter anything here and relied on false concepts.

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

It doesn't say WHY you believe that.

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

https://youtu.be/XNkjDuSVXiE?t=1m15s

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

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/vanishing.jpg)

Nope - they don't meet.

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

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

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

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

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

3) They simply "vanish" at 5 miles.

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

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

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 04, 2017, 05:18:18 AM
how, pray tell, does our vision works?
It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point. As frames shrink, they reach a point of convergence as seen by our perception. This is fundamental, there isn't magical non-intersecting lines angled at a compressed frame where apparent distances converge, they do intersect due to the fact that our field of vision shrinks to an imperceptible angular distance, that's a point from our perspective, the point of convergence. The video here got that right, and the OP brings nonsensical gobblygook to run it over, and fails.
(https://eddietuckerocapaint1blog.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/linear-perspective-2.jpg)
It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on October 04, 2017, 05:50:29 AM
how, pray tell, does our vision works?
It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point.
uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things? How do the eye works?
Quote
It's basic art, we learn it in middle school.
I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.

EDIT: exercise for the reader: draw the side, top and resulting perspective view of a room with a lamp hanging from the ceiling at a 2 m height, 4 m away from the observer.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 04, 2017, 06:48:26 AM
Your post basically just says "no it doesn't", "this isn't how it works" and stuff like that.
I'm correcting your misunderstandings and nonsensical rebuttals to this video, I included illustrations that I presume would help.
Quote
It doesn't say WHY you believe that.
I pointed out that it's because we observe it, not this 'infinite angular distance perception' nonsense.
Quote
My post very carefully explains - point by point - WHY the original video is wrong.
And gets it wrong, and that's a problem, so I point it out.
Quote
That's how rational debate works. You're treating this like the Monty Python "Argument sketch".
Which is why I pointed out what you got wrong, and I explained myself, it's up to you to be rational and consider what I'm saying and explain yourself more.
Quote
Your photo of train tracks doesn't ACTUALLY show the train tracks meeting.  Let's zoom into it:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/vanishing.jpg)

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

No, I said apparent distances are not perceivable at such distances to the limits of vision with perceptible angular distances. I brought this up so I'll quote it:
Quote
The distances between become less distinguishable at farther distances and so the farther distances produce no such effect, relative to the distances to the point of convergence, the above frames sizes become more similar until they are indistinguishable differences from our standpoint.
Seeing celestial objects is not the same as perceiving angular distances by a point, the sun's descent follows these similar angular distances with a consistent descent. How this connects is that distances we can't perceive (being at a point) represent perspective lines that converge. Angular diameter however is gonna vary by the size and distance while having no bearing on our frame convergence. This is why the sun could be said to be beyond the apex of perspective lines, in that it is beyond perceivable distances with frames and so moves through them as celestial object at a consistent rate.
Quote
In RET, the  Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is visible to the naked-eye and it's 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away.  Even in your flat-earth "universe" you can certainly see the star "polaris" from somewhere near to the equator - and in your idea of the world, it's at least 6,700 miles away.
It's pretty large to be seen and much larger frame angles, basically the field of view in the environment through which the lines meet. Distances traversed would be convergent in that it's movement would be more consistent as distances appear to converge quite similarly relative to our overall horizon distance.
Quote
So we CAN see things that are 6,700 miles away...for sure...even in FET.   So I certainly COULD see hypothetical train tracks that were going out to 6,700 miles.

Inaccurate logic, again. Seeing an object at a far distance doesn't imply all perceived distances are perceptible at every possible distance from us.
They reach apparent angles at which we can't distinguish from a point, our field of vision does that, the point of convergence.
Quote
The problem with the idea that train tracks meet sometime before infinity is this:   Suppose parallel train tracks met at 5 miles from your eye.   What would happen if we climbed a ladder so we could see 10 miles?

That's analogous to saying, "What if we move farther forward and use that to represent our perspective at a previous point?", which is faulty logic. Perception is unique to each location, the fact that angular distances converge to a point from our perspective isn't an objective phenomena that represents all distances
Quote
I can only think of three possibilities:

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

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

3) They simply "vanish" at 5 miles.
Your frame (field of vision rectangle) would be larger at higher altitudes and therefore more distance to have lines approach each other beyond your visual angle to reach an apparent point. Perspective lines broaden and you visualize farther.
Video example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpocuhmJ4VM
(http://www.thedrawingwebsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Vanishing-Point-Lines.jpg)
Quote
What would happen if we had the entire ground in front of us completely covered in parallel train tracks - parallel train tracks going off towards the horizon left and right of us for 1000 miles in each direction.
They would all branch off to a horizon surrounding us where perspective lines reach an angle imperceptible to us, creating this horizon.
Quote
What would you see?   If they just "vanish" at 5 miles - what do we see on a clear day when we can see 10 miles?   If they shrank to a point and then carried on as a thin line, then all of our view of the world would be a triangle with some kind of gap either side of the tracks at the horizon.   If they crossed over...wow...would that be a mind-bending trip!
They would reach a point where your frame of view shrinks into a dot beyond your perceivable angles of vision, you can't visualize beyond that from your standpoint, if that changed, so would the horizon line and point of convergence.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 04, 2017, 06:56:48 AM
uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things?
Light, your eyes, and aperture. Basic.
Quote
How do the eye works?
You asked how our vision works in response to my claim of how our vision is limited. This isn't biology we are discussing here, take that somewhere else.
Quote
I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.
We don't, there you go making up nonsense about how what I'm saying connects to other things and something I supposedly refuse along with another group.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on October 04, 2017, 07:47:07 AM
uh, no. What's the mechanism allowing us to perceive things?
Light, your eyes, and aperture. Basic.
Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?
Quote
Quote
How do the eye works?
You asked how our vision works in response to my claim of how our vision is limited. This isn't biology we are discussing here, take that somewhere else.
It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.
Quote
Quote
I've been saying this all along, I don't know why you guys refuse to apply the same methodology to the FE sun.
We don't, there you go making up nonsense about how what I'm saying connects to other things and something I supposedly refuse along with another group.
did you make my exercise for the reader? :P
Quote
draw the side, top and resulting perspective view of a room with a lamp hanging from the ceiling at a 2 m height, 4 m away from the observer.
I forgot the front view, but it's the same.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Rama Set on October 04, 2017, 01:26:56 PM
how, pray tell, does our vision works?
It works like cones, with a finite aperture and therefore less distinguishable distances until frames of vision compress into a point. As frames shrink, they reach a point of convergence as seen by our perception. This is fundamental, there isn't magical non-intersecting lines angled at a compressed frame where apparent distances converge, they do intersect due to the fact that our field of vision shrinks to an imperceptible angular distance, that's a point from our perspective, the point of convergence. The video here got that right, and the OP brings nonsensical gobblygook to run it over, and fails.

(Picture removed)

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

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

And now, a horrendous piece of logic from Tom:

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

P1. Cameras experience the same perspective we do.

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

Quote
P2. Cameras are objects.

Yay! You got one!

Quote
C. Objects experience perspective.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on October 04, 2017, 03:58:53 PM
Let me explain to SuperSentient what he (and EVERY OTHER FE'er) is failing to understand...

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING:

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

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

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

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

BUT THERE IS A PROBLEM:

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

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Augustusstra%C3%9Fe_1_Dresden_Stallhof_Mai_2012.JPG/800px-Augustusstra%C3%9Fe_1_Dresden_Stallhof_Mai_2012.JPG)

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

Now I hear you complaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USING MATH:

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

x' = k.x / z
y' = k.y / z

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

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

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

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

x' = 0
x  = +1

What is 'z'?

0 = k . 1 / z

z = k / 0

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

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

DERIVATION:

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

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

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PinholeMath.png)

The law of similar triangles says that:

Himage / Dimage = Hsubject / Dsubject

Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject

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

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

y' = k.y / z

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

QED.

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

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

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

I think this argument is completely watertight - and so far, nobody in FE land has been willing to even discuss it.   Tom just says "it's just a diagram"...which is a rather fundamentalist anti-science, anti-math position - and if he were honest and consistent then he'd have to call "bullshit" on all of Rowbothams diagrams too!
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: douglips on October 04, 2017, 04:50:13 PM
Quote
Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png)

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

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

The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 05, 2017, 03:17:15 AM
Quote
Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png

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

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

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

That was addressed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.msg126699#msg126699) on page 1.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: douglips on October 05, 2017, 05:43:53 AM
Quote
Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png

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

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

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

That was addressed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.msg126699#msg126699) on page 1.

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

To see if I understand properly, it sounds like you are saying that the change in angular velocity of an object as it passes has to do with the distance from the observer. This means that something farther away will have less change in angular velocity, until at some distance (say, 3000 miles), the change in angular velocity goes to zero. Is that correct?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on October 05, 2017, 02:45:08 PM
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:

Quote
Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Perspective4.png)

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance  (what is basically seen in the above picture).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 05, 2017, 10:48:07 PM
Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?
I don't necessarily accept that but am willing to grant it for this case, since light can travel in straight lines and what I'm saying here be correct.
Quote
It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.
Not to perspective, I don't need to explain the biology of the eye to explain perspective lines, or that eyes have aperture like a lens.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 05, 2017, 10:49:33 PM
How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?
They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 06, 2017, 12:38:04 AM
You SEE with your eyes that the two lines obviously meet - not very far (it seems) beyond the limits of the camera's lens or our visual acuity.  You never actually DO see the tracks meeting - but you presume that they must because you can draw the two lines on top of the photo - and it looks like they meet somewhere just fractionally beyond the resolution of the camera.
The limits of our visual acuity is the vanishing point. You said that we can perceive the distance between railroad tracks forever, but we can't, they converge at our angular resolution limit because we can't distinguish distances between points beyond that point, angles smaller than we can visualize.
Quote
So you conclude that parallel lines meet at some distance from the eye like maybe 10 miles or 100 miles or something...and base all of FET's optical properties on this, seemingly reasonable, claim.
That's our perspective indeed.
Quote
Now, let's talk about the building on the left.  You can draw a line at roof level and another one at ground level and see that they intersect...but what you're claiming is that this intersection is happening at some distance from us - 10 miles, 100 miles - whatever.   I'm claiming that...yes, the lines obviously intersect - but the DISTANCE at which they intersect is infinite.
Which means they never intersect, because infinity has no distance.
Quote
Now I hear you complaining.
About your flawed model of human perspective, indeed.
Quote
But look CAREFULLY at them in the picture.  Do you see that the separation between the columns in the photograph is smaller in the distance than it is near to the camera?
Yes, that's quite clear with our perception of far away distances.
Quote
So here is what's happening.  The closer together the roof line and the pavement line get - the more and more compressed the distance INTO the scene the picture becomes.   The horizontal spacing between columns get smaller and smaller.
This is correct, and my point deals exactly with this.
Quote
So when the roof/pavement lines would be VERY close to touching, they'd be representing something a billion miles into the scene - and at the precise point where the "perspective lines" touch - we are INFINITELY far into the scene.
Geometric lines, yes. They would have to more and more shallow and will be 0 at infinity, which is never. This assumes we have infinite aperture, which we don't, our perspective appears to intersect when distances become indistinguishable from a point.

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

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

An THAT is why parallel lines meet at INFINITE Z and not 10 miles or 100 miles as FE'ers seem to believe.
Except our perspective lines of our vision aren't parallel.
(http://web.pdx.edu/~emch/rs/B2.gif)
Angular distances decrease to the limits of aperture of the optics so the distances between are indistinguishable, this is why the vanishing point and the horizon is finite, not infinite. You miss this entirely and pretend geometric angles can represent this when it can't.
The horizon is simply the distance in which the ground and sky are at angles smaller than the eye can see and so the horizon would be an illusion based on this.
You simply can't distinguish distances since your line of sight converges distances.
Quote
I can quite understand why this fooled you - and I have to say that it hurts my brain even thinking about it.  But regardless - this is what truly happens.
We aren't being fooled here, it's just you misunderstanding human perspective and applying it to geometric lines.
Quote
x' = k.x / z
y' = k.y / z

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

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

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

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

x' = 0
x  = +1

What is 'z'?

0 = k . 1 / z

z = k / 0

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

And that's the mathematical reason why parallel lines meet at infinity under perspective.
That's not perspective. Perspective would be the point which the distances between rails become unresolvable from a point.
You take parallel lines and they basically never meet, but you can't use them for perspective because perspective lines are not parallel, implying they meet at a distance by the angular distances receding.
Parallel lines meet at infinite distance, which means never, so you represent perspective lines as
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/76000/76015/76015_3_d_lines_lg.gif)
When in reality, they are:
(http://www.vertice.ca/wp-content/uploads/vanishingpoint.gif)
Therefore what you claim with the VP doesn't work.
Quote
The height of the image is the height of the subject (the tree) multiplied by the distance from the pinhole from the film and divided by the distance to the subject (the tree).
You make the mistake here as well. If I draw a straight line at an angle from an object at X height above the ground to the ground (where the the distance between objects to have a geometric vanishing point as you describe), it will always be at an angle above the ground unless the lines are parallel (which would mean infinite distance), so you conclude that the point of convergence or the horizon is at infinity. However, if this were true, then perspective lines could never approach each other, but they do, they would have to be parallel, which they aren't. This tears apart your flawed perspective model that doesn't work in reality.
Quote
The only way to discount this derivation of the math for perspective is to deny that light travels in straight lines - or to deny that the method of similar triangles is valid.
Actually, all I need to claim is that optics always have finite aperture for perceiving angular distance, and then what you claim is false when brought up against reality. Optics do always have finite aperture, therefore you are incorrect/
Quote
So the pinhole camera is proof of the equations - and the equations are proof of the laws of perspective.
The observation that perspective operates in Z as well as in X and Y is further proof that FET's concept of finite vanishing points is untrue.
No they aren't, they fail to represent perspective lines in reality, and so don't relate to perspective at all.

Quote
I think this argument is completely watertight - and so far, nobody in FE land has been willing to even discuss it.   Tom just says "it's just a diagram"...which is a rather fundamentalist anti-science, anti-math position - and if he were honest and consistent then he'd have to call "bullshit" on all of Rowbothams diagrams too!
A diagram of geometric lines isn't gonna represent the variable of human perspective limitations.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 06, 2017, 12:50:44 AM
To see if I understand properly, it sounds like you are saying that the change in angular velocity of an object as it passes has to do with the distance from the observer. This means that something farther away will have less change in angular velocity, until at some distance (say, 3000 miles), the change in angular velocity goes to zero. Is that correct?
Yes, the vertical perspective lines to the sky converge to where the angular distances between meet across to your horizon.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: StinkyOne on October 06, 2017, 12:54:49 AM
Hey Super, can you explain to me how a low cloud can cast a shadow on a cloud higher in the sky around sunrise/sunset? For that to happen, the light source has to actually be below the level of the lowest cloud.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 06, 2017, 01:39:50 AM
No - they never "merge together" - that would happen only at infinity...which is OK in my view of perspective - but if your claim for perspective shrinking things to zero size only happens at 10 miles or whatever - then no - they have not "merged together".
But that can only happen at infinity - and the FE sun doesn't get to infinity...which is why it can never "set".
They never claimed it was at a nearby distance of 10 miles. Also, no, perspective lines meeting at infinity doesn't match reality, as I have pointed out. Perspective lines are not parallel, they are convergent. The horizon could only be a finite distance in human perspective.
Quote
Yeah - exactly.  The angle from your eye to the Cessna changes REALLY quickly when it's overhead and slows down to a barely perceptible angular change as it goes off into the distance.
It couldn't descend at a more constant rate by what you said, where vertical lines appear closer and closer together at farther distances regardless of object height. However, your model doesn't take the converging angular distances into account but assumes they never meet like parallel lines.
Quote
You FE sun would do the exact same thing.  It would track across the sky at crazy high speeds when overhead - and slow down to a crawl later in the day.
Already addressed in that post by Tom:
Quote
Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.
At higher altitudes, the vertical lines become more consistent in apparent distances.
Quote
BUT THIS ISN'T WHAT THE SUN REALLY DOES.   A simple measurement of the sun angle at regular intervals shows that it crosses the sky at a CONSTANT angular rate of around 15 degrees per hour.
Yeah, and it would do that with a high sun descending due to perspective on a flat plane.
Quote
The Flat Earth sun wouldn't do that - it would be maybe 30 degrees per hour when overhead and slow down to one or two degrees per hour in late afternoon.
From our perspective the horizon, the vertical 'planks' out in the distance converge to the same apparent angular distance as directly above, it gradually does at farther distances and the sun does it since it is beyond that point of convergence of vertical lines, and so descends constantly.
Quote
Your Cessna example is EXACTLY what we're saying your FE sun would do.   Since it clearly doesn't do that (and it doesn't change in size like the Cessna does either) - it's CLEARLY going in a circle around us.
Put this way:  If an object remains at the same size no matter what (true of Sun, moon, planets, comets and stars) then even with your "magic perspective" it cannot be changing in distance.
The sun does descend at a constant rate like the Cessna does to a larger extent at it's altitude, as you have pointed out.
You clearly haven't looked into the the position with the FES and Tom Bishop with the angular size of the sun as it descends, which you should before making a claim on it. Descent is independent of angular size as well.
Quote
If it's tracking across the sky at a constant angular rate of 15 degrees per hour and not changing distance - then it MUST be moving in a circle...not sliding along a horizontal plane as FET would have us believe.
And as explained already, it's high altitude would render it at a constant descent due to converging angular distances of vertical perspective lines.
Quote
So the only way you have out of this mess is to declare yet ANOTHER property of magic perspective.
It is not another new 'property', it has been known in basic perspective that perspective lines converge and aren't parallel.
Quote
* Magic perspective causes the sun to appear to be on the horizon.
Perpsective lines meet at a horizon, that forms the horizon.
Quote
* Magic perspective causes parallel lines to meet at the horizon.
Perspective lines aren't parallel, that's quite obvious in art.
Quote
* Magic perspective explains why the sizes of sun, moon, etc never change with distance.
It says no such thing, there isn't a breach of angular diameter here. Look into the FE views on the Sun.
Quote
Basically, so long as you never let yourself be tied down as to the actual path of photons through space - you'll continue to pile more and more unlikely properties into this vague "magic perspective" rabbit hole and hope we never find an inconsistency.
The path of photons into our eyes is limited by our perspective due to limited aperture, we can't perceive infinite light to see every angular distance distinction.
Quote
I suppose it's your best strategy - vagueness is definitely your best defense these days.
They aren't being vague here, it is a basic deducible concept.
Quote
If the jet was 10 times higher than the cessna and moving at 10 times the speed - and they were both overhead at the exact same instant and travelling in the exact same direction - then they'd appear to be in the same spot in your field of view.
This misses the point that vertical perspective lines meet at a high altitude and farther up to that point, the apparent angular distances between the vertical perspective lines become more similar since it is all viewed from you to the horizon and up. This implies a more constant descent of higher altitude moving objects.
Quote
The rate of change of angle would be the same for the jet as for the cessna...the law of similar triangles (or simple trigonometry)  proves that.
Which is wrong for our perspective of high and moving objects and disproven by the fact that apparent angular distances recede at distances even with vertical lines and looking up.
Quote
Go learn some high-school geometry...or draw a diagram if you don't believe me...I really can't be bothered to teach you basic math skills today.
They don't need to, you just keep missing the point.
Quote
That simply doesn't work.  So you're saying that once they are BEYOND the vanishing point...what exactly happens?
They disappear from our line of sight.
Quote
You know you're REALLY going to have to tell us where the photons go in these circumstances.
They may vary by other conditions but as interpreted by the limited aperture of your eyes, angular distances are indistinguishable after a finite distance, represented by convergent perspective lines.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: douglips on October 06, 2017, 01:40:29 AM
If the jet was 10 times higher than the cessna and moving at 10 times the speed - and they were both overhead at the exact same instant and travelling in the exact same direction - then they'd appear to be in the same spot in your field of view.   The rate of change of angle would be the same for the jet as for the cessna...the law of similar triangles (or simple trigonometry)  proves that.

You've correctly deduced what I was getting at with my question.

If the FE position is that objects further away do not have a reduction in angular velocity, or have a reduced reduction in angular velocity, it is possible to design an experiment to prove or disprove this without relying on high school geometry, and you don't have to get a jetliner that flies 10,000 mph to do so.

If you are riding in a train and look out the window, you can see a mountain N miles away, and a lake N/2 miles away, and observe their angular velocities and see if the change in angular velocity is always the same.

Since Tom thinks that 45000 feet is enough to illustrate this proposal, we would only need to find a mountain that is 10 miles away from a railroad track.

The high school geometry model will tell us that the angular velocity of an object passing by at constant velocity v is v/r when it's at closest approach (90 degree angle to direction of travel), but at other angles the angular velocity is decreased by a factor of the sine of the angle from direction of travel. So, when something has moved 60 degrees from azimuth/closest approach, its angular velocity will be half of what it is at closest approach.

As a formula:
ω = (v/r) sin φ
where φ is the angle (less than or equal to 90 degrees) between the direction of travel and the direction the object is with respect to the observer

The Tom Bishop model is that angular velocity is v/r reduced by some other factor larger than the sine of the angle based on distance, tending towards 1 (no reduction) at 3000 miles. We don't have to guess what that factor might be, we could do this experiment and measure what that factor is to see if it differs from the sine in a measurable way. But, a reasonable guess for such a thing might be

If we did such an experiment, Tom Bishop, what results would prove to you that objects at any distance have the same angular velocity patterns? How far away should an object be to qualify to test this idea?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 06, 2017, 01:42:48 AM
Hey Super, can you explain to me how a low cloud can cast a shadow on a cloud higher in the sky around sunrise/sunset? For that to happen, the light source has to actually be below the level of the lowest cloud.
That is not relevant to the topic here (I frankly don't want to continue a conversation in the wrong thread), make a thread on it or point to me one to discuss it if you care to.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: douglips on October 06, 2017, 02:05:09 AM
You SEE with your eyes that the two lines obviously meet - not very far (it seems) beyond the limits of the camera's lens or our visual acuity.  You never actually DO see the tracks meeting - but you presume that they must because you can draw the two lines on top of the photo - and it looks like they meet somewhere just fractionally beyond the resolution of the camera.
The limits of our visual acuity is the vanishing point. You said that we can perceive the distance between railroad tracks forever, but we can't, they converge at our angular resolution limit because we can't distinguish distances between points beyond that point, angles smaller than we can visualize.

It's ANGLES smaller than we can visualize, so the distance to the vanishing point depends on the size of the object or the distance between the perspective lines.

Here's an interesting image. If you take a picture of a long straight road from on a hill, the lines no longer seem to have a vanishing point, and you can clearly see the road still as a separate entity far in the distance. You can also see the edge of the roadbed that is significantly wider than the pavement, and it appears to be wider than the road the entire way.
https://i1.wp.com/unusualplaces.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/US50.jpg

So if something is large enough, we can see it at an arbitrarily large distance, no?

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Rama Set on October 06, 2017, 03:05:55 AM
How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?
They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.

Except I asked about intersecting, not converging.  It is obvious that lines converge at the vanishing point.  What is not obvious is when they intersect.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 06, 2017, 03:18:43 AM
It's ANGLES smaller than we can visualize, so the distance to the vanishing point depends on the size of the object or the distance between the perspective lines.
The distance between perspective lines at the line of sight decreases away from it not just straight out but out to the side as well. So, the apparent distances between perspective lines decrease as they are farther from our sight, so the perspectives lines appear to angle more when out of your line of sight to the horizon point within your line of sight. This means your field of vision as a frame shrinks to a point of convergence.
(http://fishwrapper.pbworks.com/f/vanishing_point.gif)
The distances between the perspective lines farther out the side get smaller since they are at a distance and so converge in association with your line of sight to the horizon.
Quote
So if something is large enough, we can see it at an arbitrarily large distance, no?
Yes, if it is a relatively large object like the sun, it can be seen in the sky a far distance. It also meets the horizon line which is the vertical angle of view, and the horizon is formed at an imperceptible angle.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 06, 2017, 03:26:32 AM
How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?
They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.

Except I asked about intersecting, not converging.  It is obvious that lines converge at the vanishing point.  What is not obvious is when they intersect.
They are the same thing:
(http://www.webquest.hawaii.edu/kahihi/mathdictionary/images/intersection.png)
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.97J_r1dVpRM2-fhxFox4vwEsEs&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
When lines intersect, they are converging. You asked how I distinguish between intersecting lines and the lacking of the visual acuity perceiving distances between two points. The answer is that the point where we lack the ability to distinguish between distances is the point of convergence. 'No distance' can only be represented by a point.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on October 06, 2017, 05:48:40 AM
Simplified in extreme, but will do. Does light travel in straight lines?
I don't necessarily accept that but am willing to grant it for this case, since light can travel in straight lines and what I'm saying here be correct.
Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.
Quote
Quote
It's extremely relevant, I'm sorry. Our perception is a biological function. Look it up.
Not to perspective, I don't need to explain the biology of the eye to explain perspective lines, or that eyes have aperture like a lens.
see, that's where you are wrong. Aperture is not the only relevant thing. Lights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.
Now. The sun, in your model, is 6000  miles away and 3000 miles up. That's a ~20° angle of incidence. You have plenty resolution to see it up in the sky. Basic perspective. End of the story.

EDIT: you can compare the density of the receptors in the eye to the resolution in pixels of a digital camera. The higher the resolution, the further away the tracks will "meet" in a single pixel, giving you the illusion that they actually meet.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: AstralSentient on October 06, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.
Why? I don't see the relevance of bringing in a specific distance and height of objects and plotting a diagram of them. With the topic, we are talking about perspective and it working at distances and you want to bring in a specific dimension diagram of objects at a distance.
Quote
Aperture is not the only relevant thing.

What a way to criticize what I'm saying, that aperture is all that's relevant to perspective (I didn't imply it was all there is). You people completely ignored it and assumed all angles are visible to the eye since light is in straight lines and missed that we can't perceive every angle due to limitations of aperture and perspective angles to which we perceive as a horizon and point of convergence.
Quote
Lights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.
Correct, the horizon is when the perspective lines approach each other at an angle we can't perceive, it's an illusion of perspective.
Farther perspective lines will converge steeper due to them being at a greater horizontal distance from our line of sight.
Quote
The sun, in your model, is 6000  miles away and 3000 miles up.
Who said my model? I'd be willing to entertain that the sun is at these dimensions but not claiming it must be and is not relevant to my point.
Quote
That's a ~20° angle of incidence. You have plenty resolution to see it up in the sky. Basic perspective.
Only, the sun's height line of descent would be steeper due to its vertical distance from our line of sight and so descends to meet the imperceptible angle at a larger angle. Think of a rail at a relatively far horizontal distance from your line of sight to convergence, the angle it reaches the point of convergence is larger due to its longer deviation from our line of sight. The same happens with the sun, it meets the horizon at the top of our uniform frame, where our entire field of vision converges. The top of that frame would be the steepest descent into the horizon. Higher objects move farther before reaching the same apparent horizon, which means they descend at a steeper angle, which is in proportion with a farther actual distance.
All objects will descend into our horizon line, which is from an imperceptible angle of view, by angling into it with accordance to altitude.
The angle of incidence you brought up misses that at higher altitudes, the perspective lines are meeting the same apparent horizon line from our perspective, this horizon defines all apparent relative movements and descents into convergence.
(https://watercolorpainting.com/staging/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/single_point_perspective.jpg)
Quote
End of the story.
Hardly, an excuse to be able to forget it all won't work.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on October 06, 2017, 07:08:16 AM
Then draw a diagram of an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high, and draw the resulting perspective from the pov of a 2 m high observer with the correct field of vision for a human.
Why? I don't see the relevance of bringing in a specific distance and height of objects and plotting a diagram of them. With the topic, we are talking about perspective and it working at distances and you want to bring in a specific dimension diagram of objects at a distance.
you know, applying your model to an actual distance is the only way to ascertain whether it is correct or not.
Quote
Quote
Aperture is not the only relevant thing.

What a way to criticize what I'm saying, that aperture is all that's relevant to perspective (I didn't imply it was all there is). You people completely ignored it and assumed all angles are visible to the eye since light is in straight lines and missed that we can't perceive every angle due to limitations of aperture and perspective angles to which we perceive as a horizon and point of convergence.
the reason why we can't perceive every angle is exactly what I've explained about the density of the receptors.
Quote
Quote
Lights enters the "lens" and hit the receptors at the back of your eye. The angle of incidence is preserved, that's how you see that something is higher than something else. If you lie on the ground, and look at the top of a 2 m high door, 4 m away, the light enters your eye with a ~20° angle. You see the door as higher than the floor. As you get further away, that angle diminishes, due to perspective. At a given point, the density of the receptors not being infinite, you can't resolve anymore and you can't perceive the height of the door anymore. Same thing with rail tracks.
Correct, the horizon is when the perspective lines approach each other at an angle we can't perceive, it's an illusion of perspective.
Farther perspective lines will converge steeper due to them being at a greater horizontal distance from our line of sight.
Quote
The sun, in your model, is 6000  miles away and 3000 miles up.
Who said my model? I'd be willing to entertain that the sun is at these dimensions but not claiming it must be and is not relevant to my point.
Quote
That's a ~20° angle of incidence. You have plenty resolution to see it up in the sky. Basic perspective.
Only, the sun's height line of descent would be steeper due to its vertical distance from our line of sight and so descends to meet the imperceptible angle at a larger angle. Think of a rail at a relatively far horizontal distance from your line of sight to convergence, the angle it reaches the point of convergence is larger due to its longer deviation from our line of sight. The same happens with the sun, it meets the horizon at the top of our uniform frame, where our entire field of vision converges. The top of that frame would be the steepest descent into the horizon. Higher objects will appear to move farther before reaching the same apparent horizon, which means they descend at a steeper angle proportion with a farther actual distance.
All objects will descend into our horizon line, which is from an imperceptible angle of view, by angling into it with accordance to altitude.
and this is where you stopped making sense, i'm sorry. Why should the sun be perceived differently from anything else? Suddenly you feel the need to change the methodology and come up with a different kind of perspective, where light stops working as it should, and the angles of incidence don't hold anymore. Please draw that diagram. If you don't believe me, do the reverse calculation. Look at what distance the sun should be from you, to be at a small enough angle to be near the vanishing point.

EDIT: I've seen know the image you attached, and that's a perfectly valid view. You do get how it works, why do you refuse to apply the method at the actual proposed distances?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Rama Set on October 06, 2017, 10:22:03 AM
How do you distinguish between 1. lines intersecting and 2. the observer no longer having the visual acuity to perceive the distance between two points?
They are the same, perspective lines represent apparent distances converging.

Except I asked about intersecting, not converging.  It is obvious that lines converge at the vanishing point.  What is not obvious is when they intersect.
They are the same thing:

(Picture clipped)

When lines intersect, they are converging.
Incorrect, not all converging lines intersect and intersecting lines are no longer converging, they have converged.

Quote
You asked how I distinguish between intersecting lines and the lacking of the visual acuity perceiving distances between two points

No I did't, I asked how you would distinguish between converging lines, lines that are coming to an intersection, but have not converged.

Quote
The answer is that the point where we lack the ability to distinguish between distances is the point of convergence. 'No distance' can only be represented by a point.

So then, you believe that the vanishing point is a literal convergence?  Train tracks are intersecting at the vanishing point?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: model 29 on October 06, 2017, 08:32:44 PM
How far away (when viewed from the side) would something 3,000 miles long need to be for it to appear as a single point in the distance?
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on October 06, 2017, 09:07:02 PM
How far away (when viewed from the side) would something 3,000 miles long need to be for it to appear as a single point in the distance?
to be pedant, the question is not well posed... the human eye can resolve I believe ~0,02° so to the naked eye it should be I dunno a few million miles away? You do the math, it's late here  ;D
But if you use a telescope you'll push it farther away
EDIT: I mean, by way of comparison, and I know it might not fly well in here, the moon is ~2000 miles wide, and ~240.000 miles away, and you still see it quite clearly
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on October 07, 2017, 01:27:10 PM
As usual, FE'ers can't get their heads around perspective - and efforts to explain it to them do not do well.

But perspective is just an artifact of the fact that light travels in straight lines - and the fact that to form an image of the world (either on your retina or a camera) you have to focus  rays of light to a point.

So an easier way to move the conversation forward is to take a step back and ask the more fundamental question:  How to photons travel?

We all agree (I think) that they travel in straight lines.

So it should be easy for FE'ers to explain which straight line the light travels along when their "magic perspective" makes it look as though the sun is setting.

Tom Bishop has repeatedly refused to answer this question - and Junker recently deleted an entire thread of mine that attempted to call him out on this (and he didn't even have the guts to post a notice saying that he'd deleted it).

So perhaps our new FE magic-perspective expert 'Sentient' will step up to the plate:

So here is the problem.  Our hero is standing in Texas - looking towards the rising sun (OK - so I accidentally drew the "sunset" diagram backwards!).

Sadly, the sunrise is partially hidden by a tree, ten miles away on the horizon.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Sunset_behind_trees.jpg/800px-Sunset_behind_trees.jpg)

Meanwhile, in Morocco, it's noon and the sun is somewhere close to zenith.   FET says that the sun is 3,000 miles overhead (give or take) and the distance from Texas to Morocco isn't known - but it's probably between 1,000 and 10,000 miles away.   I'm putting 6,000 miles into my diagram - but I'm prepared to be flexible on that point.

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/Sunrise.png)

So - ignoring for the moment where the sun APPEARS to be.   What path do the photons of light take when leaving the sun, skimming past the tree and into our hero's eyes?

If it's a straight line (and Tom was so kind as to assert that light does indeed travel in straight lines) then the dark blue line is the path it MUST take - and none of it is blocked by the tree.  So you'd have to ask how come the tree is indeed blocking the light?   Even if some weird artifact of human vision - or some other "perspective" argument applies - the photons weren't blocked by the tree.

Now - if the light follows the pink path - then it is indeed blocked by the tree - but now it has a kink in it's path...which isn't right because light travels in straight lines.

Can you just PLEASE tell us what path the photons took from the sun to the eye without saying the word "perspective"?  I don't care what happens inside the eye - or how the image is resolved - just tell us very simply:  Which path did the light take?

Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: model 29 on October 07, 2017, 03:56:28 PM
How far away (when viewed from the side) would something 3,000 miles long need to be for it to appear as a single point in the distance?
to be pedant, the question is not well posed... the human eye can resolve I believe ~0,02° so to the naked eye it should be I dunno a few million miles away? You do the math, it's late here  ;D
But if you use a telescope you'll push it farther away
EDIT: I mean, by way of comparison, and I know it might not fly well in here, the moon is ~2000 miles wide, and ~240.000 miles away, and you still see it quite clearly
Right.  The reason I asked is because if the sun is 3,000 miles high, it would need to be over 240,000 miles away to appear a distance above the horizon that even comes close to being equal to the size of the moon (since you provided the specs on the moon, I'll just use that).

We're left with the sun and moon physically getting lower, or perspective causing the light to curve.
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: Ga_x2 on October 07, 2017, 04:09:26 PM
Right.  The reason I asked is because if the sun is 3,000 miles high, it would need to be over 240,000 miles away to appear a distance above the horizon that even comes close to being equal to the size of the moon (since you provided the specs on the moon, I'll just use that).

We're left with the sun and moon physically getting lower, or perspective causing the light to curve.
precisely. I realized later that that 3000 figure wasn't random ;D
Anyway that's the point. If you accept that light travels in straight lines, then it's basic geometry. I tried using an online trig calculator, because i'm lazy, and to have 3000 miles within a 0,02° angle the result was above 8 million miles. I won't bet my life on the figure being correct, but it looks reasonable to me.
Of course it's out of wack with reality, but that doesn't seem to have ever given pause to the good folks here ;D
Title: Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
Post by: 3DGeek on October 08, 2017, 02:46:51 AM
Right.  The reason I asked is because if the sun is 3,000 miles high, it would need to be over 240,000 miles away to appear a distance above the horizon that even comes close to being equal to the size of the moon (since you provided the specs on the moon, I'll just use that).

We're left with the sun and moon physically getting lower, or perspective causing the light to curve.
precisely. I realized later that that 3000 figure wasn't random ;D
Anyway that's the point. If you accept that light travels in straight lines, then it's basic geometry. I tried using an online trig calculator, because i'm lazy, and to have 3000 miles within a 0,02° angle the result was above 8 million miles. I won't bet my life on the figure being correct, but it looks reasonable to me.
Of course it's out of wack with reality, but that doesn't seem to have ever given pause to the good folks here ;D

I believe that the 3,000 mile height for the sun comes from the Eratosthenes experiment.  If you interpret his measurements in a flat earth frame of mind - then instead of measuring the size of the Earth, we would have been measuring the distance to the sun.

The horizontal position of the sun at sunset is easily known because the sun has to be vertically overhead some place on the ground where it's Noon.    Admittedly, the FE'ers don't have a map - so we can't measure that distance...but the fact we can fly there in an airplane sets the upper limit for that.

I went with the RE distance for that (6,000 miles) - but any other distance will do fine for the purposes of arguing this point.