#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2018, 06:38:32 PM »
Except that the surface is approaching eye level at the horizon where the diagram is marked.
...and the perceived size of waves gets smaller at the same rate the perceived size of larger things becomes smaller.

It doesn't work. 1m things only eclipse 100m things when they are much closer, not farther.

I was just down at the shore watching and photographing the 4-5' SSW swell hitting Baja and Socal coastal waters. I watched a Navy cruiser head west on the horizon. It was not being hidden be any waves. The more distant Coronado Islands looked the same as they do when sea surface is calm.

This "waves+perspective" rationale makes no sense, but the zetetic proof is in the observation, right? Should I post pics and video of 1m waves NOT obscuring 100m object on rhe horizon to prove it?

(Where the heck IS the horizon on a flat earth? I've asked that several times before and have had to come up with my own formula which had never been confirmed or denied.)

« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 10:43:49 PM by Bobby Shafto »

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2018, 06:40:42 PM »
Except that the surface is approaching eye level at the horizon where the diagram is marked.

I don't understand. This is not looking uphill. How is the surface approaching eye level?

Are you saying that looking out over the ocean actually goes uphill?

Even if the water did go uphill under normal viewing conditions, such as standing on a beach, a 6 foot wave would not obstruct hundreds of yards of a building.

« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 06:46:35 PM by iamcpc »

#### stack

• 1601
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2018, 07:16:57 PM »
I'm more than willing to be wrong, but in this example, it seems the waves had to have been inordinately high, like tsunami high, to obscure 84.26 ft at an observation height of 12.1 ft.

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### HorstFue

##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2018, 08:56:59 PM »
I wonder why nobody got away from this view, to consider only a single wave. There are many more waves, hundreds, thousands, millions.
Waves are all around the area between the observer, the horizon and the observed object.
Now, as you cannot look through the waves, it would not make any difference, if you filled up (virtually) the space between the waves with water. This will define a new surface, which is a distance of half the wave height above the level defined in calm weather with no waves, or the normal ground level.
The tops of the waves define a new surface, that reduces the height of the observer and the observed object (measured against ground level) by half the wave height. With these reduced heights you can now go on and construct your "perspective" views.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2018, 09:52:34 PM »
I'm more than willing to be wrong, but in this example, it seems the waves had to have been inordinately high, like tsunami high, to obscure 84.26 ft at an observation height of 12.1 ft.

(Turning Torso image)

When we had that Turning Torso discussion before, "waves" wasn't the flat earth rationale; it was optical compression.

Here is a view of North Coronado Island about 16 miles away from this spot today, almost high tide with a 4-5' primary ground swell coming from the SSW.

The island is about 425' at its peak (130m). That spur on the far left is 100 and 120' (30-40m) high.

1 meter waves are not blocking 100 meters of that island.

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2018, 10:16:50 PM »
I'm more than willing to be wrong, but in this example, it seems the waves had to have been inordinately high, like tsunami high, to obscure 84.26 ft at an observation height of 12.1 ft.

(Turning Torso image)

When we had that Turning Torso discussion before, "waves" wasn't the flat earth rationale; it was optical compression.

Here is a view of North Coronado Island about 16 miles away from this spot today, almost high tide with a 4-5' primary ground swell coming from the SSW.

Not only would the waves have to be hundreds of meters high but also we have to understand that these buildings are many times several feet above sea level. No matter how you spin it i really struggle to see how waves accounting for hundreds of feet of a building disappearing is even possible unless you are floating in the ocean.

How on earth is this wave in any way obstructing the view when both the observer and the building are significantly above sea level?

« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 02:44:26 AM by iamcpc »

#### zorbakim

• 36
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2018, 06:35:21 AM »
The physical parallel plane rises to an eye level.
It draws a curve(I called it ID graph)
ID graph does not exactly match the eye level as I have shown.
But We can't distinguish it with eyes because of the resolution limit.
Therefore, waves on the horizon can interfere with our vision.
We must distinguish between math and reality.
The reality consists of complex visual phenomena.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3697
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2018, 08:36:21 AM »
The physical parallel plane rises to an eye level.
No, it doesn't. Bobby has shown that result very clearly in the other thread about the horizon rising to eye level but you are free to repeat his experiments or design your own if you dispute his findings.

Quote
Therefore, waves on the horizon can interfere with our vision.
No, they can't. I have shown with diagrams above and some real life photos why they can't.
The horizon is basically you seeing the edge of the earth. You can't see the surface of the earth (or sea) beyond that because it is behind the curve of the earth.
You CAN, however, see tall objects beyond the horizon if you have clear line of sight to them and the curve isn't occluding the whole object and the atmosphere is clear enough.
The pictures of the Turning Torso building show that very clearly.

Quote
We must distinguish between math and reality.
If the math didn't accurately represent reality then any computer 3D rendering which uses that math would not look real. But it does look real, because it is an accurate reflection of reality.

EDIT: Maybe it would help if you showed some diagrams explaining how light from a tall building is blocked by a small wave on the horizon. I'm struggling to picture it.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 08:38:41 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2018, 03:40:18 PM »
The physical parallel plane rises to an eye level.
It draws a curve(I called it ID graph)
ID graph does not exactly match the eye level as I have shown.
But We can't distinguish it with eyes because of the resolution limit.
Therefore, waves on the horizon can interfere with our vision.
We must distinguish between math and reality.
The reality consists of complex visual phenomena.
Did you see my video above? What you're saying can happen isn't happening. I've never seen it happen.

Here's an old discussion topic from this past summer where we talked about whether or not waves were the reason for "sinking ship effect" that ended with a link to a participation-experiment proposed by ICanScienceThat addressing the very thing you're trying to address.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 03:46:51 PM by Bobby Shafto »

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2018, 04:18:25 PM »
The physical parallel plane rises to an eye level.
It draws a curve(I called it ID graph)
ID graph does not exactly match the eye level as I have shown.
But We can't distinguish it with eyes because of the resolution limit.
Therefore, waves on the horizon can interfere with our vision.
We must distinguish between math and reality.
The reality consists of complex visual phenomena.

Even if the plane did rise to eye level a 3 foot wave is not blocking hundreds of feet of a building. I don't see it.

In this diagram the viewer is standing at sea level looking at something that is very far away with ground level rising to eye level as you have claimed it does. I'm still not seeing a 3 foot wave blocking out more than a few feet of a building which is currently in the ocean.

Please keep in mind that many of these building observations made by Bobby were made with both the viewer and the building several yards above sea level.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 04:22:00 PM by iamcpc »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7665
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2018, 08:07:26 PM »
And how do you know that our perspective lines recede infinitely and continuously into the distance like the classical mathematical model?

According to the quantized paradigms of Quantum Mechanics, very few things in nature are infinite or continuous. In fact, the continuous universe time and space of the Ancient Greeks, where things are infinitely divisible without discrete units of measurement, has increasingly been shown to be false.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 08:17:34 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2018, 08:18:19 PM »
And how do you know that our perspective lines recede infinitely and continuously into the distance like the classical mathematical model?

Where in this thread did someone make the claim that perspective lines recede infinitely into the distance? Please try to keep things on topic.

What does this have to the claim that a viewer, standing on the shore with eyes 5 feet above sea level (not floating in the ocean) can have 100's of feet of a building (which is also 5 or more feet above sea level) obstructed by a 3 foot wave?

According to the quantized paradigms of Quantum Mechanics, very few things in nature are infinite or continuous. In fact, the continuous universe time and space of the Ancient Greeks, where things are infinitely divisible without discrete units of measurement, has increasingly been shown to be false.

Ok. What does this have to do with this topic again? We are trying to understand how a normal 3-4 foot wave could account for an entire skyscraper being obscured from view (without floating in the water and having the wave be very close to your face).  The only way something small has been able to effectively obscure something much larger is if it's very close to your eye (like holding up a dime to obscure an elephant).
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 08:25:56 PM by iamcpc »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7665
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2018, 08:31:28 PM »
You are assuming a model of perspective which stretches into infinity continuously without meeting, rather than the finite perspective model observed where the lines appear to meet.

I am asking why you are waving your hands frantically and asserting that there is an unobservable stretch of infinity where the perspective lines meet. You are sounding like someone who is trying to convince others of the existence of ghosts.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2018, 08:37:24 PM »
You are assuming a model of perspective which stretches into infinity continuously without meeting, rather than the finite perspective model observed where the lines appear to meet.

No I'm not. I never made such an assertion or assumption. To clarify for you, because you seem so hung up on it.
I am officially assuming a model of perspective which does NOT stretch into infinity.

Furthermore such an assumption even if it was made (which it wasn't). What does that have to do with helping me understand how a 6 foot wave can obscure hundreds of feet of a building when both the viewer and building are 10 or more feet above sea level?

I am asking why you are waving your hands frantically and asserting that there is an unobservable stretch of infinity where the perspective lines meet. You are sounding like someone who is trying to convince others of the existence of ghosts.

I never asserted than there is an unobservable stretch of infinity. I'm asking you why you are waving your hands frantically saying that someone asserted some sort of model of perception.

What does this have to do with helping me understand how a 6 foot wave can obscure hundreds of feet of a building when both the viewer and building are 10 or more feet above sea level?

Please try to stay on topic here.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 08:39:07 PM by iamcpc »

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2018, 08:40:41 PM »
You are assuming a model of perspective which stretches into infinity continuously without meeting, rather than the finite perspective model observed where the lines appear to meet.

I am asking why you are waving your hands frantically and asserting that there is an unobservable stretch of infinity where the perspective lines meet. You are sounding like someone who is trying to convince others of the existence of ghosts.

Zorbakim is assuming the same model. It's the basis of his "side perspective" argument. Similar (but with a drastically different conclusion) to the ICanScienceThat argument that Tom rejected.

I don't want to stifle discussion, but I'd like to see Tom and Zorbakim hash this out. Seems like something FE theory needs to resolve.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 08:42:19 PM by Bobby Shafto »

#### stack

• 1601
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2018, 09:22:01 PM »
You are assuming a model of perspective which stretches into infinity continuously without meeting, rather than the finite perspective model observed where the lines appear to meet.

Though they appear to meet, from a model of perspective looking out toward the end-point of rails on the horizon, do the train tracks actually meet at a convergence or do they continue to maintain their gauge spread?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3697
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2018, 10:05:20 AM »
You are assuming a model of perspective which stretches into infinity continuously without meeting, rather than the finite perspective model observed where the lines appear to meet.

I am asking why you are waving your hands frantically and asserting that there is an unobservable stretch of infinity where the perspective lines meet. You are sounding like someone who is trying to convince others of the existence of ghosts.
What we're assuming is that if we can see a 1m wave which is, say, 5 miles away on the horizon then I can also see the SODDING GREAT BUILDING which is a few meters beyond it. I'd like to see you or someone else show a diagram demonstrating how a ray of light from a 100m building can be blocked by a 1m wave unless the wave is close and your eye is below 1m.

How perspective works in the real world has been explained to you multiple times. The size you perceive something depends entirely on the angle the light rays from either end of it meet at your eye. The light from either track at A meets at a bigger angle than the light from either track at B, thus you perceive A as being bigger than B even though in reality they are the same size:

That's it. At what distance does that angle become 0, given that you can see this is a triangle? At infinity.
BUT, we don't have to wait till infinity, in real life we can't perceive things if that angle is below a certain size.
That is where the rails would actually appear to meet at a finite distance simply because we could no longer distinguish them.
Optical zoom would then restore them so we can perceive them as separate rails again because zoom increases that angle again such that we can perceive things more clearly.
But, even without optical zoom, if there was a big building beyond where we can no longer distinguish the two rails then of course we could see it, it's a lot bigger than the distance between the rails, the light from the top and bottom meets at our eye at a much bigger angle than that of the two rails so we can clearly see it.

It's interesting how objects being occluded by the horizon (which in the real world is the edge of the earth) are explained by merging perspective lines or things on the horizon blocking them - ergo, it's not because the earth is curved. But then long distance photography is used as proof that the earth is flat because if the earth is curved then you shouldn't be able to see them. Well...if your model of perspective is correct then you shouldn't be able to see them either. You can't have it both ways...
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 10:07:29 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7665
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2018, 05:52:38 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
That's it. At what distance does that angle become 0, given that you can see this is a triangle? At infinity.

That's the rub. No one has ever proven this continuous perspective model. Its part of the Continuous Universe model of the Ancient Greeks who imagined a perfect universe, and which is still used in Classical Mechanics. This Ancient Greek concept of a perfect universe assumes the following:

- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
- The Perspective Lines receded infinitely and continuously into the distance

Quantum Mechanics has increasingly discredited this Continuous Universe model of Classical Mechanics. We now know that reality is not continuous in this manner. Perfect circles do not exist -- there is evidence that there is a fundamental unit of space. Time is likely not infinitely divisible, either. We do not live in this mathematical fantasy of the Ancient Greeks.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### edby

• 1214
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2018, 06:26:19 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
That's it. At what distance does that angle become 0, given that you can see this is a triangle? At infinity.

That's the rub. No one has ever proven this continuous perspective model. Its part of the Continuous Universe model of the Ancient Greeks who imagined a perfect universe, and which is still used in Classical Mechanics. This Ancient Greek concept of a perfect universe assumes the following:

- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
- The Perspective Lines receded infinitely and continuously into the distance

Quantum Mechanics has increasingly discredited this Continuous Universe model of Classical Mechanics. We now know that reality is not continuous in this manner. Perfect circles do not exist -- there is evidence that there is a fundamental unit of space. Time is likely not infinitely divisible, either. We do not live in this mathematical fantasy of the Ancient Greeks.

Why would this matter if, say, I am measuring a bathroom cupboard at the shop? The ruler is of course discontinuous, and if you look at it through a microscope it will appear all jagged and nothing like a straight line. Likewise the cabinet. Yet I can measure it perfectly well. So the geometry of the Greeks (which is our geometry) works perfectly well, despite your qualifications.

Also, Greek geometry does not assume that "the space can be infinitely long". Quite the opposite*.

*See "Euclid and Infinity", S. T. Sanders, Mathematics News Letter, Vol. 4, No. 7 (May, 1930), pp. 15-22

« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 06:29:29 PM by edby »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7665
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2018, 06:29:36 PM »
Why would this matter if, say, I am measuring a bathroom cupboard at the shop? The ruler is of course discontinuous, and if you look at it through a microscope it will appear all jagged and nothing like a straight line. Likewise the cabinet. Yet I can measure it perfectly well.

We cannot "measure perfectly well" that the little area where perspective lines meet is actually an infinite space where the lines continuously approach each other forever, or whether they simply meet.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy