Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bobby Shafto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: Today at 12:51:07 AM »
The audience for your argument, Tom, is other bible fundamentalists who adhere to a flat earth because of their interpretation of the bible. What I'd be interested in following is a debate amongst that crowd about the biblical pros and cons of UA.

You're making an argument, Tom, but I don't detect anyone from that target audience providing counterpoint. REers playing "devil's advocate" isn't the same.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« on: December 16, 2018, 11:34:19 PM »
I watched that and FlatEarthCantScience critiques. I have critiques of those critiques. When I'm at my computer later I'll comment.

Edit: So, quick comment. I'm impressed both FECantScience and G.Sapien give that team some credit and acknowledge the curious nature of the result. I'm not so keen on the dispersion explanation.

Certainly, the light from the mirror has bloomed due to the air (surface level moisture and haze), but that wouldn't defeat surface curvature.

I tend to suspect surface ducting. Although that feels like just the counter example of Tom always explaining apparent hidden features with "compression." Either explanation needs more than just assertion.

I think the next step is just to show it's reproducible, and at greater distances. I don't think it will be. I already see how the beach level waters' edge isn't visible across 12.9 miles between La Jolla and Encinitas. My visibility has been better too than what's in that Pacific Grove to Moss Landing video. I just don't see how a mirror flash can be visible under normal refractive conditions. Dispersion shouldn't make it visible if obstructed.

I'm going to be doing a set of "experiments" like this, first above any obstructions just to validate what it looks like at 13-20 miles. And then take it over water across 13, then 15 then 20 miles. If it can be done consistently...

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 16, 2018, 02:05:58 AM »
"Go the way of all earth" is a Hebrew idiom meaning "to die."

4
Flat Earth Theory / Illumination of Western Horizon at Sunrise
« on: December 15, 2018, 06:24:56 PM »


Westward view from Mt Woodson in San Diego County on 12/13 @ 0641 PST.

This is different from the underside of clouds being illuminated by a sun "below" the horizon. Here, we're looking in the opposite direction of sunrise and seeing illumination of low altitude atmosphere before the sun has appeared to the east.

I believe this is the antisolar line. I believe this to be another sun-related phenomenon that could be a discriminator between a flat and globe earth.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?
« on: December 15, 2018, 09:40:47 AM »
But it does matter, in fact it is crucial...

What does anything that followed that opening statement have to do with whether or not the moon is transparent?

Edit: Is it in response to the question about if you believe the moon is transparent how do you explain solar eclipses? Answer being, moon isn't what eclipses the sun?

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?
« on: December 15, 2018, 05:05:48 AM »
Quote
If you do some reading about earthshine pics you'll find that: a) the setting of the camera is important (eg, exposure level); b) they're usually (always?) several identical images 'stacked' on one another; and c) then the ]
Maybe off topic, but I'd been wanting to capture an earthshine photo for some time, and finally learned how/when. This required no photoshop. Just the right exposure settings, right phase and a slight adjustment to contrast in post:


7
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 14, 2018, 07:08:23 PM »
A few observations after listening to an hour of the Globebusters/Pete discussion.

Where is this?

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sunken Land Effect
« on: December 13, 2018, 08:45:36 PM »
That would be nice, but I can only use what's "outside my window."

Lacking that, standing on one summit, finding level with a sighting tool like the water level, and then extending that level sight line to another distant peak -- the water level really serves the role of those 2nd and 3rd peaks in your graphic.

Someone committed to a preconceived result will always find reason to reject contrary evidence.

And who's to say the result will be contrary? I haven't even performed the observation yet. I'm just planning and waiting for suitable conditions.

Fortunately, my objective is not to convert flat earthers. I just enjoy the investigation and dialogue about it.

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 13, 2018, 07:37:30 PM »
I think we can be honest here. The main reason the wider Flat Earth community rejects FES and UA is because scripture says that the earth is fixed and immovable.

In my opinion this is not necessarily what scripture states, however...[snip]

That's interesting.

However, I could also make a similar exegesis regarding the shape of earth.

But would those who adhere to the prescription that the earth is flat because the bible says so be open to a less literal interpretation of the immovability of the earth? I honestly don't know. I'm only familiar with Young Earth Creationism from a segment of my congregation. A flat earth model has never come up as far as I know, much less a UA-version of such a model.

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude
« on: December 13, 2018, 01:17:24 AM »
Look up what a datum is. It says that the "The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum," likely to connect to the spherical earth models such as WebMercator, not that it's a spherical earth map. It's a flat map.

Not "likely to connect to a spherical earth." It's not a conspiracy or a trick. It's specifically and for the sole purpose of establishing reference coordinates to an ellipsoid shape. The GRS80 geodetic reference is based on an ellipsoid. NAD83 is thus based on an ellipsoid. It's not a flat map in any way other than it is projected onto a 2-D surface for presentation. 

You can't weasel-word your way around that fact by interjection your own bias with unfounded speculation on the reason by GRS80 ellipsoid is used as a reference. "Like to connect to the spherical earth."  Please! 

The XY coordinate system is a grid laid on top of a spherically derived map. Simple as that.

Exactly.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 12, 2018, 09:37:25 PM »
You might have tried to explain why perspective couldn't explain it but you didn't succeed. 

May I try?

1. Let this represent a cloud bank. The upper half (red with yellow squares) is cloud. The lower half (yellow with red squares) is the "gap" below the clouds. The gap is 500' from surface to ceiling. The clouds are an additional 500' above the gap. Together, they are 1000'.


2. Here is a view of that cloud+gap from a height of 100 feet (bridge of a ship) at a distance of 100 miles through a 50mm focal length lens. On the left is a flat earth view. On the right is a globe earth view. On a flat earth, we can't resolve the cloud from the gap but we can see something. On a globe earth, we see nothing yet. But this isn't about whether or not something can be seen. This is about perspective. As far as perspective is concerned, 500 feet of cloud (or 500 feet of clearance below the cloud) subtends about 0.054 of a degree or just over 3 arcminutes.  A good eye should be able to resolve an angular gap of 3 arcminutes below the cloud but this display/model isn't able to.  Still, lets pretend that we're approximating the limits of eye resolution since that is a companion piece of the perspective argument for a flat earth:


3. Let's try to overcome the resolution limits of the shorter focal length by zooming in. This is a common flat earth argument for showing how "zooming" in can restore something to view. At 200mm "zoom" in the flat scenario we can now barely make out the lower 500' yellow segment representing the gap. Did zooming make the cloud bank appear to "rise up?" Or did it just help resolve the upper 500' from the lower 500'?

Zooming didn't work on the globe side. The entire 1000' of cloud+gap is still not visible. On the flat side, zooming didn't increase resolution of the upper 3 arcminutes of clouds more than the lower 3 arcminutes of gap. Both are still 3 arcminutes. Zooming just helped us to begin to distinguish the two from each other. In other words, the clouds didn't come into view before the gap did. They diverged from the same 6 minutes of arc into two 3 minutes of arc of distinguishable characteristics.  Zooming didn't change perspective. Perspective remained the same.


4. Let's leave the focal length alone now and begin reducing distance. Here is the 200mm view from 75 miles (always keeping our observation height at 100 feet). The globe view still can't see the clouds, but now the flat earth can clearly distinguish cloud from gap. Both are 500' in height and they have increased in vertical angular height at the same rate. At 75 miles, 500' now subtends 4 minutes of arc. That's perspective at work. The spatial dimension of angular height is inversely proportional to the distance. As distance decreases the apparent height (angular height) increases. But perspective isn't making the clouds "grow" more rapidly than the gap. 500' of gap isn't resolving more slowly than 500' of cloud. Perspective is operating on both at the same rate.


5. At 50 miles, the clouds have finally come into view on a globe earth. Are we seeing only the tops of the clouds or, like previously in the flat earth scenario, is the 500' of clouds merely unresolved from the lower 500' of gap? It must be the former, right? Because we're zoomed in to 200mm, so 500' should subtend the same degree of arc as in the clearly resolved flat earth scenario. At 50 miles, 500' now accounts for 6.4 arcminutes. That's true whether we're on a flat earth or a globe. It's a function of distance, not surface topology. So on a globe, we MUST only be seeing the top of the 500' clouds. The lower 500' gap is still hidden from view.

But this didn't happen as the cloud + gap came into view on a flat earth. Perspective increased the size of the clouds and the gap at the same time. Zoom helped us resolve the difference earlier than in the globe scenario, but it didn't bring the clouds into view before the gap. Neither did perspective. Already, we can see something different is happening on a globe than on a flat earth in the way this cloud bank is coming into view.


6. This is a 40 mile view. On the flat earth, the cloud bank and the gap beneath it both just keeps getting bigger. That's how perspective works. The angle subtended by a 500' vertical height is now over 8 arcminutes. But even so, on a globe at that distance, though the full 500' (8+ arcminutes of cloud) is visible, only a tiny sliver of the gap below the clouds is seen. Maybe about 20% (100 of the 500 feet of gap). If perspective was responsible for this disparate revelation of gap compared to cloud, then we should have seen the clouds resolve earlier than the gap in the flat earth scenario. But they didn't. They resolved together, equally, as you would expect with perspective. But something else other than perspective (or resolution) must be responsible for the differences in revealing of the gap below the clouds.


7. At 30 miles, we clearly see that there is a gap under the clouds, but it's still narrower than the band of clouds above. But we know that we set the model up so that they were the same vertical height of 500', which at this distance makes up almost 11 arcminutes. We see the full 11 arcminutes of cloud in both the globe and flat scenario. But we only see about 7.5 arcminutes of gap in the globe scenario. That's 3.5 minutes of arc difference between the cloud band and the gap band. (Gap Band.  Ha!)

That delta never happens in the flat scenario. Perspective doesn't cause that. The remaining increase in angular visibility is what is causing the upper cloud segment to appear to rise; something with doesn't happen in a flat scenario and for which Perspective is not responsible.


8. Finally, we'll jump ahead and stop at a distance of about 14 miles. At this range, 500' takes up over 23 arcminutes and the full span of the gap below the clouds is fully visible on a globe.  Perspective can now 'expand' the gap area inversely to the distance just as it's been doing on the flat earth side since the start.

What what Perspective is incapable of doing is making the gap come into view and increase in size more slowly or after the upper clouds.



Note, too, that a distinguishing feature between flat and convex surface models is the "dip" in the objective from eye level.

In Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe, he adds an extra feature to "help" perspective explain this phenomenon. He says surface irregularities, such as waves, at the horizon account for the difference between how higher and lower objects are revealed. The model above didn't account for surface irregularities. The surface was smooth.

But you can't have your perspective cake and forget about it too. Perspective works on the waves as well, causing them to diminish in angular height with distance. To account for the disparity between revealing of upper clouds and lower gap, they'd have to be closer to the observer by inverse relationship to the size required to account for the amount of obscuring they would cause. Not only that, but they'd have to be ever-present, yet the "sinking ship" phenomenon happens regardless of sea state or surface smoothness.

Another oft-claimed addition to the flat earth scenario is the atmo(layer) effects at low grazing angles. The atmo- is dense, and looking horizontally across a distance near-parallel to the surface is to look through ever denser amounts of particulates, moisture and other obscuring, light-extinction factors. We encounter haze, mirage, shimmering, diffusion...aspects which make distinguishing things more difficult. This is most pronounced close to the surface (usually). So "convergence zone" -- that band of air closest to the surface of earth -- becomes another possible explanation for why lower elements of an object or lower objects are lost to sight before higher ones. And that is true...sometimes. Not always. Like waves, atmospheric/atmolayer surface conditions can mask things from sight that just getting a little steeper angle or elevation can restore to sight.

But if that's a required component, then it needs to be consistent. The atmo- is anything but consistent. It's in constant flux. Yet even under perfectly clear and stable air conditions, the above phenomenon is observed. 

So that's why citing perspective as the reason for "sinking ship effect" is grossly flawed. Perspective doesn't work in that way. And trying to apply ad hoc rationalizations (waves, eye resolution, convergence zone) to salvage it only reveals its flaws.

But a curving surface does work as an explanation. (So does light curving in the opposite direction away from a flat earth surface, which is why I remained intrigued by Electromagnetic Accelerator in a flat earth model while disparaging Perspective as an explanation for the "sinking ship" phenomenon.)

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sunken Land Effect
« on: December 12, 2018, 05:54:04 PM »
Another thing about this observation: the viewing elevation on Mount Soledad was 790'. One can get to a height of 815' with a tripod.

That hill/ridge in San Clemente is 850-900'. 

If "eye level" is 790-815', then that distant hilltop should not dip below eye level if the earth is flat. Maybe atmolayer conditions can cause it to appear to fluctuate, like in the Skunk Bay time lapse video, but the line of sight being ~800' above the surface should limit that.

But if the earth's surface is convex, then that far hill should consistently appear below the level line as viewed from Mt Soledad, even though it is slightly higher in elevation.

We have low clouds and fog limiting visibility today. Tomorrow is forecast to dry out and potential Santa Ana wind conditions could blow out the marine haze and maybe leave visibility good enough for a trip back to the La Jolla summit. If so, I'll try to perform a level observation and see whether that distant point does dip or stays at eye level.



Weather is not cooperating. Heavy surface haze that is limiting visibility to less than 10 miles.  And today is the last chance I'll get until after Christmas. Will just have to wait a couple more weeks for resolution to the question "does it dip or not?"


13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 12, 2018, 07:04:45 AM »
Waiting for Tom to affirm, but it sounds like he's not arguing perspective (anymore) but rather that there is a tilt component to the bottom of the clouds responsible for that phenomenon. Because Perspective can't accomplish a physical change to the geometry. As Tom noted, the "mirror" must be tilted.

I wonder how much "tilt" is needed? Depends on the height of the sun, distance to the sun and height of the clouds. Whether the sun is 700 miles high or 3000 miles high makes a pretty big difference. But let's go with 700 since the lower the sun actually is, the better for Tom's explanation; and some FET models do argue for a 700 mile high sun.

If those clouds in my picture were miles high (as local meteorologist claimed) and the distance over the earth (flat or convex) was 6200 miles, then we can work out mathematically how tilted the clouds would have to be for the underside to be exposed to the sun and reflect its light. 

But rather than do the math, let's do it with a practical demo.

Scaled 1 mile = 1 inch...

Sun height over earth = 58 feet
Sun distance = 517 feet
Cloud height = 3 inches




I'll have my son shine a laser mounted on a tripod from the spot on the hill where the red arrow is pointing, and I'll position a mirror (or just a white foam board) 3" parallel to the ground at the white arrow. Then I'll start tilting the forward edge of the target "cloud" up until the laser is able to shine on the ground-facing side. The resulting angle will be the amount of tilt toward the rising or setting sun that such clouds over a flat earth would need in order to exhibit that under-lighting. Any less than that and the underside would not be lit up.

Any objections?


14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 12, 2018, 05:04:29 AM »
Clouds are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.

My original question is that if the clouds we're mirrors, would you see the sun at the horizon? More in the sense of, if the clouds were shiny and reflective, like silver popcorn, would you see the bright reflection of the sun? Yes, you would. You would see the sun reflecting off of the clouds.

This is the point. The point is that the clouds are seeing the sun.

If you were to put your head somewhere where the red area is you would see the sun or the red horizon from that vantage point, or the glow through the clouds. If you were to put your head in a dark area, your view of the sun would be blocked by clouds.

That one part of the clouds is illuminated and another is not, does not tell us that the clouds are being lit from the bottom. It tells us that some parts of the clouds can see the sun and not others.

That those areas of the clouds happen to be the lowest parts of the cloud is expected.

Clouds that are lit that way on a flat earth then must be tilted toward the sun. That's what you're saying. If they're horizontal, that underlit phenomenon can't happen on a flat earth. Correct?

The answer has to be yes, but I want to see you affirm it.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 12, 2018, 04:41:52 AM »
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."

Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted.

What? We don't agree.  Fundamentally, we don't. Perspective doesn't make a light source higher than an object illuminate the bottom of a lower object. Perspective doesn't alter the physical geometry. Perspective is perceptual. You are trying to rationalize a way for perceptual fact to account for a physical impossibility. We can just keep gainsaying each other, or you can demonstrate how you are right. I'd love to see it. 

But no tilting of the mirror. That's not demonstrating how perspective is accomplishing the impossible.

There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical, let me know.

See above.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon.

Uh, yeah. You don't see it IN THE MIRROR. That's the point. Perspective does not make the higher sun reflect its light on the bottom of lower clouds. The sun has to be actually lower than the clouds.


If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

That's the problem, isn't it? That's the flaw in explaining the phenomenon as a consequence of perspective. It doesn't work.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal.

Whoa there, partner. You were the one who interjected the mirror analogy. Now, you see the problem with that and so you want to try to cheat to position the "mirror" in a way that salvages the analogy but violates the explanatory power of "perspective?"  I've already given you leniency on allowing that perspective is the reason the sun can reach the horizon at all. Perspective can't do that either but I gave you that one. Now, you want to help perspective even more my tilting the mirror?

The clouds can see the horizon, and can receive its reddish light. Higher clouds will be higher in altitude and will be seeing the sun higher above the horizon where the light isn't as reddish. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

And I don't understand why you don't understand. What part of the clouds are "seeing" the sun light? The bottom of the clouds, right? Now, you're adding the required element that the bottom of the clouds be inclined toward the sun and THAT'S why they're illuminated that way?

So the picture I posted?

That's happening not because of any perspective rationalization because that cloud ceiling is higher over Ocotillo to the east and then slopes lower as they extend toward the west? If they were horizontal, they wouldn't reflect the sun light, correct? At least not on a flat earth. Is it the tilting and not perspective that explains that phenomenon?

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock or a mystery? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.

No. That observation wouldn't be a shock. But that's a different explanation from the perspective one you tried to foster here. Requiring that the cloud bottoms be tilted to satisfy the mirror analogy renders perspective void.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 12, 2018, 12:09:20 AM »
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 11, 2018, 11:21:54 PM »
I'm a sucker.

Where in this red herring refutation of infinites and Greeks is perspective ever accounting for a higher plane descending below a lower plane, perceptual or otherwise?

Use Rowbotham's diagram.

The clouds are at one altitude. The sun is at a higher altitude.

The ground plane appears to rise to a horizon point, H. When is the light path from the sun ever able to achieve an angle to the bottom of the clouds?



The perceptual plane that is the bottom of the clouds doesn't extend horizontally while the ground slopes up and the sun's plane slopes down to meet it. It too, slopes down. And, if you're buying Rowbotham, because it is at a lower elevation, it meets the ground plane well before the sun ever does, at some point at or beyond H (whatever finite value that is, which I can never get you to quantify.)

Let's don't just draw lines. Do an experiment. Position a mirror facing the ground but above your head. Then place a light source somewhere further away but at a height higher than the mirror. Show me how you can make it far enough away so that you can see the light source in the mirror. Perspective will cause the distant light source to appear at an angle lower than your view to the mirror, but that won't place the light source below the level of the mirror. That's what perspective does. It's makes things appear to be smaller, lower, closer together. But it doesn't physically make dimensions or intervals smaller. The light will still (and always) be above the mirror.

I'd do it, but I'm a bit tired of performing these practical demos and having them have zero persuasive power. I invite you to do it and show me how it is possible. Perspective doesn't work the way you are applying it. (It doesn't even work the way Rowbotham describes, but even his rationale doesn't salvage perspective as the explanation for how a sun at a higher altitude illuminates the bottom of clouds at a lower altitude.)

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 11, 2018, 10:52:10 PM »
Lets answer this question: Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the rail road tracks in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

Do you, as Elucid asserts would happen under his model, believe that they have become one to your vision at an infinite distance away?

If you agree that the railroad tracks appear to merge a finite distance away, then it must also be possible for the sun to merge a finite distance away.

Your next course of action will be to quote this post and bold "appears to" in some sort of "gotcha;" but we never claimed that the sun really set into the earth.

Note that you had to include "to your vision" in the statement attributed to Euclid. (No idea if Euclid ever said that, but the accuracy of that's a distraction. We'll go with it.)

The railroad tracks don't actually merge. They only appear to, "to your vision."  It's a perceptual thing.

Perspective doesn't indicate actual distances or heights or other spatial dimensions are actually changing for the objects increasing in distance away from your point of perspective. The sun, over a flat earth, will still be the same height over the flat earth. Perspective doesn't make it descend. It only appears to descend.

And it does so at a rate inverse to the distance. It's not linear. The further it gets, the less the angle of descent.

Which is why I long ago argued with you that Perspective can't cause the sun to reach a horizon on a flat earth. You don't have enough distance for the sun to achieve away from you for the sun to ever get below a certain angle.

The ceiling represented by the plane base of those clouds also "descends" -- apparently, "to your vision" -- according to perspective. So, unless you have bendy light, the sun can never achieve an angle less than that cloud base without physically getting to an actual height lower than that cloud base plane altitude. Perspective isn't the answer.

Let's table this for now; I know that arguing against perspective without preparation is a lost cause.

Sorry. I should know by now this "debate" about Perspective never resolves. I've tried to explain it many different times and way. It never changes.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 11, 2018, 10:32:32 PM »
Nice shot Bobby.
Wish I could take credit, but it's by a local photography with a knack/skill for getting some amazing sunrise and sunset shots in San Diego.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 11, 2018, 10:30:32 PM »
Tom? Perspective is perceptual. The land doesn't physical rise. H values don't physically change.

As the apparent angle of the sun changes, so does the angle of the plane of the bottom of the clouds. Never does the plane of something higher descend below a parallel plane below it. They both appear to descend, but the sun's angle will and can never decrease greater than the plane of the clouds.

What you're depicting isn't even what Rowbotham's describes as the Law of Perspective.

Try it. Set up a model and show me how perspective accomplishes what you describe. It won't work.

I can make it work by "cheating," or by invoking methods other than perspective. But the perspective explanation is sleight of hand. It doesn't work that way.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52  Next >