*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #80 on: October 29, 2018, 11:26:01 PM »
Bobby,

This is something that you might be interested in. Inside of the claim that the horizon always raises to eye level who's to say that "raising to eye level" is linear.

Yeah, I picked up on that. It doesn't change my opposition to what zorbakim is promoting, but I recognize that he's applying inverse proportionality of apparent size to distance, and that that is what he says creates our perception of depth. And he does say that as a result, "side-view" perspective reveals the rising plane of the earth presents as a curve. I've redrawn it in your graphic:



And he conveys the concept like this, although he says the horizon only "nearly" rises to eye level (which, I think, is his acknowledgement of infinity in the analysis, in contradiction to Tom Bishop's version):



but Zorbakim's point being that the inverse ratio of apparent size vs distance creates what he says is a sloped rise of the ground plane from a forward-looking perspective and not the linear slope we, including Rowbotham in "Earth Not a Globe" depict it:



I take issue with that analysis, but it is irrelevant to the 1m wave on the horizon argument that is the prime focus of this topic. Whether it's sloped or linear, whatever is at eye level remains at eye level,  UNLESS either light is "bendy" or the earth surface slopes away. Perspective doesn't cause something at eye level closer to the horizon to ascend above eye level at or beyond the horizon.

Even if I add the supposed curve and concede, for the sake of argument, that the horizon does rise to eye level, the summit of a 1m obstacle will never "add to" the level of the horizon. It will simply diminish in apparent size with it's peak never elevating to obscure anything. It's lost to the vanishing line of the horizon.



Similarly, the more distant 100m object (in this graphic: a building)? The most of it that could ever be obscured by a 1m object on a flat surface from a vantage point of 1m is 1m of it's 100m height.

You certainly can -- and do -- lose resolution with distance so that you can't distinguish 1m from from 10m or 50m. Increasing resolution through telescopic magnification is how many claim they are able to bring objects lost to the horizon back into view. But if 1m is obscured by a 1m obstacle on the horizon, it is never brought back into view by a telescope, at least not if the earth is flat.

On a globe, with an atmosphere, there is "bendy light" of a sort that is less explicable if on a flat earth with an atmoplane. And it's "bendy" in the opposite direction (usually) from the "bendy light" of EAT. So being able to see something that should be obscured were it not for atmoSPHERE is entirely possible. Perhaps not to the point of making the earth appear flat but a least somewhat less convex than an earth with a radius of 3959 miles.

But I digress. Zorbakim's pitch that his side-view perspective, which is markedly different from (and even, in parts, contradictory to) Rowbotham's explanation of perspective, explains how a 1m wave on the horizon can obscure anything beyond the horizon that is much higher than 1m is fatally flawed. Somehow, his 1m wave has elevated above the 1m eye level and defies the inverse-proportion concept that zorbakim, himself, explains as if it's a revelation. Perspective can't do that. It doesn't do that.

On a flat plane (without EAT), "what happens at eye level stays at eye level" (to borrow a slogan).

By comparison, on a convex surface, the story is different and what would be at eye level at one distance drops away below eye level at greater distances. On a convex surface, even with the horizon not at eye level, 1m distant objects CAN obscure more distant objects of greater height. But that's academic because the greater factor to hiding distant objects is the curvature and not 1m obstacles on the horizon.

---

And while I'm pontificating, I'd like to add that I still have difficulty with understanding how distance to a horizon is calculated on a flat earth, whether it be zorbakim's version or Rowbotham's. If resolution is a factor, then the horizon with a 200m telephoto lens should be, what, 4x more distance than with my naked eye? I would love to (again) invite zorbakim to explain the distance to the horizon calculation methodology. To date, the best he's offered is that it's complex and takes experience.

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #81 on: October 30, 2018, 02:51:46 PM »
The sea is not an ideal plane.
I hope this video would help.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2018, 02:55:15 PM by zorbakim »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #82 on: October 30, 2018, 03:05:11 PM »
The sea is not an ideal plane.
I hope this video would help.
It doesn't.

I have several questions. Here's one.

Why don't the waves get smaller with distance?



Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #83 on: October 30, 2018, 03:05:34 PM »
The sea is not an ideal plane.
I hope this video would help.

In your video, why doesn't perspective apply to the waves?



Bottom right is not a 1 meter wave, it's a tsunami. Of the 2012 caliber.
Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong?  ???

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #84 on: October 30, 2018, 03:09:40 PM »
The sea is not an ideal plane.
I hope this video would help.



No, why would a wave grow in size to be as big as the building?  The wave never gets taller then 1 meter.  That 1 meter high wave loses visual resolution at a distance just like the building does.  The building is still 99 meters taller then that 1 meter wave. This would be even more apparent on a flat earth.

Conflating a proven incorrect theory about the horizon "rising" to eye level with perspective and resolution loss of distant objects does not work to explain the appearance of curvature and hidden objects. Not in theory, or by observation. 

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #85 on: October 30, 2018, 03:14:04 PM »
The picture of wave is just for convenience and for visual effect.
The calculation was done according to perspective.

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #86 on: October 30, 2018, 03:22:29 PM »
The picture of wave is just for convenience and for visual effect.
The calculation was done according to perspective.

Are you saying that perspective has an opposite effect on buildings and waves, that buildings shrink while waves enlarge?

Such an effect has never been observed. How would perspective differentiate between the two?

Can you provide the calculation?
Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong?  ???

Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #87 on: October 30, 2018, 03:27:40 PM »
The sea is not an ideal plane.
I hope this video would help.
It doesn't.

I have several questions. Here's one.

Why don't the waves get smaller with distance?


Yes. I think you have found the tiny flaw in the argument.
There is a school of thought which says that in the visual diagram if the building gets smaller because of distance then the waves should too.
This is the stupidest thing I ever saw.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 662
    • View Profile
Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« Reply #88 on: November 01, 2018, 10:38:32 PM »

Yeah, I picked up on that. It doesn't change my opposition to what zorbakim is promoting, but I recognize that he's applying inverse proportionality of apparent size to distance, and that that is what he says creates our perception of depth. And he does say that as a result, "side-view" perspective reveals the rising plane of the earth presents as a curve. I've redrawn it in your graphic:




The first big problem with that concept is that, based on the distance from the observer, that wave is WAY more than 3 feet tall. A 3 foot wave that far in the distance would still be negligible in obscuring the building.

The second big problem is that, in this situation, both the observer and the building are at sea level. I still really struggle with how I could make this diagram (which is still very difficult for me to comprehend) when both the observer and the building are 30 feet above sea level.