[geckothegeek]

Here is another thought for you flat earthers.

If you were a flat earther up in that crow's nest, 100 feet above the sea, you would see the horizon about 12 miles from your vantage point.

From that, why wouldn't you conclude that the earth was a flat disc 24 miles in diameter ?

But !......Wait.! ....One flat earth source says that you would not see a horizon but you would only see a blur that fades away  at an infinite distance because of the "atmoplane."   

(1) Using that flat earth "idea" (if the earth was flat) if you were in the middle of the ocean on a clear, calm day - no refraction or  "atmoplanic" conditions existing - according to this, if you looked in any direction wouldn't you expect to see just an indistinct blur that fades away at an infinite distance ?   

(2) But if the earth was round,  if you looked in any direction , wouldn't you expect to see a distinct line - the horizon - where the earth and sky  meet ? And wouldn't you be able to estimate the distance you can see to the horizon depending on how high you were above the sea ?

I'll leave that open for discusion by sailors or persons who have been on the sea. Which of the above would you see ? (1) or (2) ?

[rabinoz]

They shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives.

You speak often of the "Laws of Perspective" as though they are "Laws of Nature".

You say objects "shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives." But, there is nothing to say that the point where "they shrink down to indistinguishable size" is on the visible horizon. There are numerous photos of objects appearing to be behind the visible horizon, such as in:

http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sailing%20Boat%20nearer%20and%20Buildings%20behind%20Visible%20Horizon_zpsvtmrawto.png

Where we clearly have a sailing boat nearer that the visible horizon and buildings further away. The buildings certainly are not to there vanishing point, so if there is a single vanishing point, it is clearly much further than the visible horizon.

Do you have a reference to these "Laws of Perspective"?

I know of the "Rules of Perspective" as relating to perspective drawing, but nothing like "Laws" as though they are "Physical Laws".

The reference quoted by TFES Wiki is "Perspective Drawing Handbook", yes a Drawing handbook - nothing more than a guide to drawing.

Yet we have:

Basic Perspective
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

My highlighting!

On of my "beefs" is that "From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level." is used as though it is a "law of nature". I contend that the horizon appears to rise almost to your eye level - where the "almost" depends on your altitude.

Then we get the purely "imaginary" idea of perspective from Rowbotham of the

Sinking Ship Effect
On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:

However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:

This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to shrink into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point from the bottom up. As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea's surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull.

While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before it too shrinks into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the sea and becomes indiscernible from the surface.

So, I would like some reference to what you use as your "Laws of Perspective".

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

They shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives.

You speak often of the "Laws of Perspective" as though they are "Laws of Nature".

Are you denying your own eyes? Or any photograph ever? Perspective is the perception of a 3D space. I don't get what's so hard to understand.

You say objects "shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives." But, there is nothing to say that the point where "they shrink down to indistinguishable size" is on the visible horizon. There are numerous photos of objects appearing to be behind the visible horizon, such as in:

http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sailing%20Boat%20nearer%20and%20Buildings%20behind%20Visible%20Horizon_zpsvtmrawto.png

Where we clearly have a sailing boat nearer that the visible horizon and buildings further away. The buildings certainly are not to there vanishing point, so if there is a single vanishing point, it is clearly much further than the visible horizon.

Of course, that skyscraper is a lot bigger then the boat. Your point? It still looks a lot smaller then if you were right on the street next to the skyscraper, and still smaller than say if you were on that boat.

I didn't say the horizon was the vanishing point of everything. It is the place where, in this instance, the sky, which is clearly OVERHEAD, meets the ocean, which is clearly SEA LEVEL.

Assuming this photo is zoomed in to some extent, I bet that when you zoom out the buildings seem to shrink, possibly even obscured more so on the bottom by the waves that are closer to your point of view.

Do you have a reference to these "Laws of Perspective"?

I know of the "Rules of Perspective" as relating to perspective drawing, but nothing like "Laws" as though they are "Physical Laws".

The reference quoted by TFES Wiki is "Perspective Drawing Handbook", yes a Drawing handbook - nothing more than a guide to drawing.

Yet we have:

Basic Perspective
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

My highlighting!

On of my "beefs" is that "From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level." is used as though it is a "law of nature". I contend that the horizon appears to rise almost to your eye level - where the "almost" depends on your altitude.

Then we get the purely "imaginary" idea of perspective from Rowbotham of the

Sinking Ship Effect
On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:

However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:

This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to shrink into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point from the bottom up. As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea's surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull.

While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before it too shrinks into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the sea and becomes indiscernible from the surface.

So, I would like some reference to what you use as your "Laws of Perspective".

That's pretty much it. They are a drawing aid in an attempt to mimic reality. Reality is that light enters our eyes, or any focal instrument distorted in a way that we can perceive 3 dimensional depth of field. You have to be denying your own eyes to say that perspective isn't a law.

[Rounder]

That's pretty much it. They are a drawing aid in an attempt to mimic reality. Reality is that light enters our eyes, or any focal instrument distorted in a way that we can perceive 3 dimensional depth of field. You have to be denying your own eyes to say that perspective isn't a law.

The problem is, perspective isn't a law.  It is (as you say yourself) a drawing aid to attempt to mimic reality.  It is not reality itself, but an aid to mimic it. 

The same might be said of the fact that a column with perfectly straight sides appears to be concave, but is not.  Builders learned in classical times to design columns with a slight bulge, called entasis, as a building aid to mimic the appearance of a straight column.

[geckothegeek]

And unless you are at such a great height that the horizon is such a great distance or objects are so small, they are not going to shrink to some size to not be distiguishable    before they disappear over the horizon "hull first, masts last."

[rabinoz]

So, I would like some reference to what you use as your "Laws of Perspective".

That's pretty much it. They are a drawing aid in an attempt to mimic reality. Reality is that light enters our eyes, or any focal instrument distorted in a way that we can perceive 3 dimensional depth of field. You have to be denying your own eyes to say that perspective isn't a law.

I gave references to the "Rules of Perspective", that are just an aid to making realistic looking drawings and paintings.

There is clearly a massive difference between what the Flat Earth "movement" calls its "Laws of Perspective" and what I claim we see.

This

and

Simply have no basis. There is no justification for the distance to the vanishing point to be the visible horizon.
So would you please give your "Laws of Perspective" and some reliable references to them.