Offline Bob454

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Question about the Law of Perspective
« on: March 18, 2019, 01:22:07 AM »
I'm researching the credibility of FET for a school project and came up with the question, "If the Earth is flat, why is it clearly visible that the sun sets/rises beyond the horizon (visually) instead of simply moving away from us on the same altitudinal plane?"

After further research, I found that people attempt to explain this using the "Law of Perspective."

Can someone please either answer my question or, if that is not possible without using the Law of Perspective, explain to me exactly what that is and give me proof, or at least evidence that this "law" applies to our perception of the sun moving across a flat Earth?

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2019, 06:09:21 PM »
FEs use vanishing point and perspective to explain why the sun is still up there at night but you can't see it. FEs do not understand perspective and vanishing point, just using the words as a seemingly valid explanation. Google those words and learn what they really mean.

This is not a good site for your purposes. What most FEs here want is to create elaborate theories to explain FE. They do not want to explain the problems, they want to create delusional thought castles that explain the issues, and they do not want problems with these explanations pointed out.

FEs everywhere (in person, all web sites) ignore or leave threads that pose difficult questions for them.

Additionally, it depends on which FE you ask, so they can always disavow the problems with each presented model, as in "that's just one possible map, I don''t believe that one." There is, of course, no FE map. So you can never disprove the FE map.

You are looking for "credibility", which is orthogonal to FE except in the fevered dreams of the brave new warriors of truth. Good luck getting a straight answer or any at all.

Try the other FE society. They have more traffic. Still, you may have trouble getting a coherent story for your paper, coherent FE is an oxymoron.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2019, 04:02:07 PM »
I disagree with Jim in these points. He has already mentioned that he takes this personally, hence he is necessarily emotionally biased.

FE theories are elaborate. So are RE theories! General relativity is faaaar more elaborate than any current FE theory.

Plus, and I can only speak for myself, I do not run away from hard questions. In fact I have challenged Jim to bring me his best RE argument and I will publicly address it. That invitation has so far not been accepted.

Credibility is indeed orthogonal to FE. In fact they form together a basis for the vector space of rationality:)
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2019, 04:09:26 PM »
I would disagree that FE theories are elaborate - if you are talking in the terms of the scientific definition of a theory.

Repeated zetetic observations are the only thing supporting the notion of a flat earth theory.

The rest of these so called "theories" are mere proposals of untested and unverified claims and equations.


"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

What theories of flat earth are you proposing to be true theories - besides the single one I pointed out?
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2019, 04:18:52 PM »
I would disagree that FE theories are elaborate - if you are talking in the terms of the scientific definition of a theory.

Repeated zetetic observations are the only thing supporting the notion of a flat earth theory.

The rest of these so called "theories" are mere proposals of untested and unverified claims and equations.


"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

What theories of flat earth are you proposing to be true theories - besides the single one I pointed out?

Yes, I concede this point. I was using “theory” loosely, since contextually I believed that was the usage employed.

According to the rigorous scientific definition of a theory, there does not exist a FE theory, just like there does not exist a theory of intelligent design. The criteria is not met.

This is why I’m here: to help develop FE hypotheses into testable claims. The end result down the line, if successful, may lead to a theory.

A theory is a the pinnacle of science. Once it is a theory, that means it is as true and accurate as science can determine. Colloquially, we use the word theory to mean: my half-assed guess. It is important to clarify how we are using words, and your point is well stated.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2019, 04:26:28 PM »
I agree. Wording can be misleading sometimes.  I am not sure if there could be a referendum on using certain terms on this site, but it would be nice. Being able to definitively say theory vs proposal, etc. Being able to discern which is which would allow us to fully clear the air. A lot of time is wasted between people pointing out that things being claimed are merely proposals of some long drawn out thought experiment - which is fine, but most of the time it is just left hanging there as a proposal and then it gets slaughtered. Thats great that people can come up with these alternative ideas, but it would be even better if there was some attempt at coming up with an experiment, or having evidence to back up the claim, or at least proposing an idea for an experiment and looking for suggestions on how to implement it properly. Most of what I have seen on here is mere conjecture.

Takes me back to the days when I first learned the word swag. Stupid/Simple wild ass guess. Then I learn pop culture now has the ownership of it (even though it is a shortened form of swagger).
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2019, 04:30:30 PM »
I agree. Wording can be misleading sometimes.  I am not sure if there could be a referendum on using certain terms on this site, but it would be nice. Being able to definitively say theory vs proposal, etc. Being able to discern which is which would allow us to fully clear the air. A lot of time is wasted between people pointing out that things being claimed are merely proposals of some long drawn out thought experiment - which is fine, but most of the time it is just left hanging there as a proposal and then it gets slaughtered. Thats great that people can come up with these alternative ideas, but it would be even better if there was some attempt at coming up with an experiment, or having evidence to back up the claim, or at least proposing an idea for an experiment and looking for suggestions on how to implement it properly. Most of what I have seen on here is mere conjecture.

Takes me back to the days when I first learned the word swag. Stupid/Simple wild ass guess. Then I learn pop culture now has the ownership of it (even though it is a shortened form of swagger).

This is precisely why I push for describing ideas using mathematics. There can be misunderstandings, but there is no ambiguity. I find that often changing (subtly) the operative definition of words is an evasion technique used in discussions here. That is actually a logical fallacy, the name of which I do not recall.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2019, 04:56:38 PM »
It is called equivocation.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2019, 05:40:13 PM »
It is called equivocation.

That’s the one!
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline pb1985

  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2019, 01:41:58 AM »
I don't consider myself a FE'er, but I'll offer a potential explanation:

1) As the sun moves farther away, it moves towards the center line or horizon line of one's perspective field. Similarly, if a plane flies away it's going to appear closer to the horizon line and appear to drop, just as an object on the ground that moves away will appear to rise. The closer the object gets to the center line, the more it compresses, i.e. the more optical data that has to fit into a tiny space, to the point of total compression, which can explain why objects seem to disappear bottom first.
2) At the same time that this bottom-first compression is occurring, refraction causes an illusion of magnification (presumably due to dust, increased atmospheric interference), in the same way that the moon appears far larger when it is near the horizon line. This would explain why the sun often appears larger at sunrise and sunset than during midday.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 01:44:11 AM by pb1985 »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2019, 03:37:00 AM »
I don't consider myself a FE'er, but I'll offer a potential explanation:

1) As the sun moves farther away, it moves towards the center line or horizon line of one's perspective field. Similarly, if a plane flies away it's going to appear closer to the horizon line and appear to drop, just as an object on the ground that moves away will appear to rise. The closer the object gets to the center line, the more it compresses, i.e. the more optical data that has to fit into a tiny space, to the point of total compression, which can explain why objects seem to disappear bottom first.

The problems I have with this stem from planes, things, get smaller as they visually move away from your POV. Something like the sun, in its setting, generally does not. As well, why bottom first? Why not the object, fitting into a 'tiny' space, compresses from all sides? The sun should shrink uniformly to a dot and then vanish. There is no up or down. But instead, it stays it's relative size even 1000's of miles away at sunset and slowly slinks below the surface, every time.

2) At the same time that this bottom-first compression is occurring, refraction causes an illusion of magnification (presumably due to dust, increased atmospheric interference), in the same way that the moon appears far larger when it is near the horizon line. This would explain why the sun often appears larger at sunrise and sunset than during midday.

We would need some sort of calculation/formula for this refraction/magnification to occur pretty much every day of the year equally around the world. Seems a bit far fetched that every sunrise and sunset observed on earth every day would magically possess some properties affording a top up sunrise and a bottom down sunset. Where the sun isn't just refracted/magnified to behave so, but to make it appear from nowhere and dissappear completely only to be revealed again 12 or so hours later.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2019, 03:41:24 AM »
Yes I agree that is odd. How does vanishing perspective fit with the Sun erasing from the bottom up? My understanding of vanishing perspective is that the vanish is symmetric.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline pb1985

  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2019, 07:01:42 PM »
I don't think you're looking at it correctly.

Optically, think of the sun not as a distinct object but as an inextricable part of a single image  that is the human perspective field, and imagine that the field consists of thousands of horizontal lines. These lines compress into smaller increments (terminating at near-zero increments) as they get closer to the center line, so the horizontal lines that represent the top or bottom part of a departing object will hit the center line and compress first; top or bottom depending on whether the departing object is above or below the center line of the perspective field. When an object returns into view, the opposite effect of compression (which takes the effect of sinking), i.e. decompression, would occur (taking the effect of rising), as if a tape is being played in reverse.

As for the claim that sun appears the same every time, I disagree. I'd say it's smallest when overhead, and largest at sunrise and sunset, but appears larger some sunsets than it does in others due to changing atmospheric conditions. So tying refraction's effect to a constant or formula wouldn't suffice. In determining refraction's effect you'd also have to account for all the dynamics and effects of aether, which is not disproven and was repeatedly re-proven in experiments by Sagnac and others, as well as possible re-interpretations of the nature and behavior of light. Einstein's relativity is still under dispute by eminently qualified academics.

Whether or not these coincident phenomena are actually accounting for what we see is another question, but it seems at least plausible on its face.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 07:11:23 PM by pb1985 »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2019, 07:31:04 PM »
I don't think you're looking at it correctly.

Optically, think of the sun not as a distinct object but as an inextricable part of a single image  that is the human perspective field, and imagine that the field consists of thousands of horizontal lines. These lines compress into smaller increments (terminating at near-zero increments) as they get closer to the center line, so the horizontal lines that represent the top or bottom part of a departing object will hit the center line and compress first; top or bottom depending on whether the departing object is above or below the center line of the perspective field. When an object returns into view, the opposite effect of compression (which takes the effect of sinking), i.e. decompression, would occur (taking the effect of rising), as if a tape is being played in reverse.

Cool explanation, but it doesn't account for what we observe. Objects, suns, moons, cars, planes, whathaveyou, uniformly shrink as they move farther away from the observer. There is no bottom up compression of horizontal lines or such. Would also beg the question, what are these lines? Are they 'pixels'? What is their size, how are they divided? What constitutes a 'line'? Also, why horizontal? Why not vertical, or diagonal? This seems like a real stretch not necessarily seated in reality and merely a conjuring to get out of a jam, so to speak.

As for the claim that sun appears the same every time, I disagree. I'd say it's smallest when overhead, and largest at sunrise and sunset, but appears larger some sunsets than it does in others due to changing atmospheric conditions. So tying refraction's effect to a constant or formula wouldn't suffice. In determining refraction's effect you'd also have to account for all the dynamics and effects of aether, which is not disproven and was repeatedly re-proven in experiments by Sagnac and others, as well as possible re-interpretations of the nature and behavior of light. Einstein's relativity is still under dispute by eminently qualified academics.

Whether or not these coincident phenomena are actually accounting for what we see is another question, but it seems at least plausible on its face.

I agree, the sun doesn't appear the same every time. But I would say often enough, twice daily, to billions of people that would require some uniformity of explanation. As for whether you would have to account for the dynamics and effects of aether, ostensibly, we already do. Refraction is calculated and is the same whether aether exists or not. In other words, refraction is aether agnostic.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2019, 11:01:30 PM »
“, think of the sun not as a distinct object but as an inextricable part of a single image  that is the human perspective field, and imagine that the field consists of thousands of horizontal lines...”

Except that won’t work, because the Sun moves through that image as a distinct object. So as your field of view rotates around you, the Sun will take a distinct path through it.

The rest of your explanation involving horizontal lines is way over my head. I do not understand it at all. Sorry!
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline pb1985

  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2019, 01:04:31 AM »
'Doesn't account for what we observe . . .suns, moons'

As far as I know, there's only one of each that we see here, and it accounts for the moon, which appears considerably larger as it nears the horizon, and I'm suggesting it may apply to the sun also.

'No bottom up compression'

Yes there is. I said the lines are merely a device to understand what's happening, not to say they exist. If you divide the perspective field into 1,000 horizontal lines, there is compression for those nearest the center line, while those away from the center are increasingly spaced out (which makes closer objects appear larger). As for the other dynamics at play, objects that depart converge towards the center, even if they remain far off to the left or right. If you Google Image 'one point perspective grid' you will get a better idea.

'Require some uniformity'

How can they require what doesn't exist, if we are both admitting that apparent sun size varies within the day, and day to day? I dispute your claim that the sun is always the same at sunset and sunrise. As for whether aether is accounted for, doing so may be impossible since the sun is unlike any other object, [in FE] is higher than any other visible object, and aether concentrations or its behavior may vary with latitude and altitude in unknown ways. While refraction is predictable and expressible in a formula in a lab setting, there is no way to translate that across the numerous variables in a real-world setting, especially when the object is said to be 3,000 miles altitude, and no man has likely gone beyond 30-40 or so.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 01:13:52 AM by pb1985 »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2019, 01:59:24 AM »
'Doesn't account for what we observe . . .suns, moons'

As far as I know, there's only one of each that we see here, and it accounts for the moon, which appears considerably larger as it nears the horizon, and I'm suggesting it may apply to the sun also.

As an FE proponent, as far as one of each, I would argue that you don't know this. In some FE models there is a 'shadow object' aiding the moon and sun in an eclipse setting.
As for Moon size on the horizon being larger, yes a phenomena and can apply to the Sun as well. But that doesn't account for the sun that on a Flat Earth is over my head 3000 miles up at noon and then scoots across the sky and come sunset, it's over land approx 6-7000 miles away from me to the west. Still 3000 miles high. Yet somehow it has maintained it's observable size, if not a smidge larger, and slips downward, bottom up, disappearing completely, not to be seen again by me until tomorrow. All that and it's 3000 miles above me.

'No bottom up compression'

Yes there is. I said the lines are merely a device to understand what's happening, not to say they exist. If you divide the perspective field into 1,000 horizontal lines, there is compression for those nearest the center line, while those away from the center are increasingly spaced out (which makes closer objects appear larger). As for the other dynamics at play, objects that depart converge towards the center, even if they remain far off to the left or right. If you Google Image 'one point perspective grid' you will get a better idea.

A compression for those nearest the center line do not make for completely shearing off the bottom of the object, like this:



As well, in 'perspective' drawing there is more than one. There are two point perspectives, three, etc.

'Require some uniformity'

How can they require what doesn't exist, if we are both admitting that apparent sun size varies within the day, and day to day? I dispute your claim that the sun is always the same at sunset and sunrise. As for whether aether is accounted for, doing so may be impossible since the sun is unlike any other object, [in FE] is higher than any other visible object, and aether concentrations or its behavior may vary with latitude and altitude in unknown ways. While refraction is predictable and expressible in a formula in a lab setting, there is no way to translate that across the numerous variables in a real-world setting, especially when the object is said to be 3,000 miles altitude, and no man has likely gone beyond 30-40 or so.

I'm not saying it's always the same. But I could post a thousand timelapse sunsets and they would all look extremely similar; the bottom continually sinks until the entire orb disappears, bottom up and you could set your watch to it. "Aether concentrations" and the like are irrelevant. One man's aether is another man's atmosphere. So if we measure some refraction in a given scenario, whether it's measuring through aether or not is neither here nor there. The calculation and observable result is the same. See what I'm saying?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2019, 02:28:16 PM »
'No bottom up compression'

Yes there is. I said the lines are merely a device to understand what's happening, not to say they exist. If you divide the perspective field into 1,000 horizontal lines, there is compression for those nearest the center line, while those away from the center are increasingly spaced out (which makes closer objects appear larger). As for the other dynamics at play, objects that depart converge towards the center, even if they remain far off to the left or right. If you Google Image 'one point perspective grid' you will get a better idea.

I just have to butt in here because you're misstating how perspective works. There is no "center line." Perspective goes to infinity at the horizon, yes, but it also does so at every single other point around you. If you had railroad tracks going straight up into the sky they'd merge at that infinite point. There's nothing special about perspective at the horizon (other than possible atmospheric effects, which is a different topic).

As any object recedes, every single visible part of it merges toward that infinite point. Thus, it appears to get smaller. If the sun were truly receding, then when the bottom of it actually touched the horizon, it would be at the same instant the top touched the horizon. It would be infinitely small at an infinite distance.