I've mentioned this a bit already, and the Waves, Crests and Sunsets thread has touched on this subject quite extensivelly, but I wanted to add a bit more to the criticism of the 'law of perspective', and I used a new thread because those other ones seem to be dead (God knows, is it because no FEer can respond to them?). In any case, I do not find Rowbotham's chapter XIV (explaining why a ship's hull dissapears before its mast-head) to be at all satisfactory. His arguments are based on the range of the eye, which he gives as 110 degrees. (All sources I've looked at state the range of binocular vision as 140 degrees, but whatever, that's not particularly important in my criticism). In any case, he clearly defines the law of perspective on page 203, building it specifically what can be distinguished by the human eye and its limitations, and proceeds to build his argument from there. However, the same effect (that of a ship dipping below the horizon) can be seen at precisely the same time with a telescope or a camera or any other apparatus that has any kind of zoom feature. These devices should not be fooled by the law of perspective, at least not at the same time that the eye is, but they are. In fact, using a camera and zooming in or using a powerful land telescope, you can clearly and distinctivelly see a ship sinking below the horizon, it is not simply a trick of perspective on the eyes. Furthermore, with modern ships, one can see smaller features on the deck of the ship quite clearly, while the massive hull becomes obscured. This may not have been the case in the days of mast-heads, since mast heads are larger than the hull, but it certainly is true now. For example the following picture:
If it is true that distinctive parts of the ship should dissapear first (which would in fact be true as a ship moved farther away on a flat surface) then those smaller more distinctive objects on the deck of the ship should dissapear before the hull, but they do not. Saying that this isn't the case, contradicts the point Rowbotham is trying to make in Fig 73. (which is in fact a valid point.. however, note that even here, if one were to use a pair of binoculars or a good telescope, one would once again see the white dot in the middle of the figure).
I also want to make specific reference to Fig 74. As the circle gets farther away, the white segment becomes undistinguishable from its surrounding background and the whole object looks like a dark circle. However, it still looks like a circle! It doesn't dip below the horizon until it looks like a semi-circle. And in fact were it to get further away, it would continue to get smaller but it would still retain its shape as a circle until it vanished due to being obscured by fog or whatever.
The rest of the diagrams and their errors were adressed with paint diagrams in previous threads so I will not spend too much time on them. I will point out that Fig. 79 is seriously incorrect. The wheels of the locomotive engine would never dissapear below the horizon like that. It would gradually get smaller but it would always remain on top of the horizon. Rowbotham makes the interesting assertion that "The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point." This is where he is in fact wrong for all practical purposes, and this is what I probably should have started my argument with but anyway. What evidence does he have that this is an error? He seems to just pull this out of the air, and this is in fact the basis for why something nearer to the surface would dissapear first (according to him). I would love to see reference to any reputable work that mentions this phenomenon. But it is a simple matter of fact that all parallel lines would converge at the same vanishing point. He gives no reason for why this wouldn't be the case, just says that it is an error and lets that be that. He mentions that this is demonstrable but then doesn't demonstrate it (at least I hope his diagrams aren't attempts to demonstarte it because they're clearly inaccurate). You can demonstrate this with any 3D rendering program where you can build a virtual map and then move around in it. If the counterargument is that this is still a trick on the eyes and has to do with their limitation, I once again bring up the telescope or binoculars. There is simply no reason why you shouldn't be able to see a ship or object in its entirety through a land telescope even after 'perspective' has obscured it from the eyes. The diagrams in previous posts leave no doubt about this.
Thus, my point is, as it has always been, that the zetetic law of perspective is complete rubbish, and simply cannot explain the phenomena observed. If I wrong on any of these points, by all means correct me, and please do so in a specific manner. Tom, I don't want any 1 line answers. Cheers.
Final edit (I hope):
Alright, furthering my last argument. The following photograph helps me to illustrate my point:
The labels correspond to Rowbothams on his Fig. 76.
The white lines drawn clearly show the vanishing point in the picture. The green horizontal line is for reference purposes. Rowbotham argues that point H cannot be the true vanishing point because the angle C,H,E is not equal to the angle A,H,E. Thus he argues that the angle must be the same or it is not the vanishing point. This is plainly and simply WRONG. This is the reason why the bottom half of an object would dissapear before the top half, according to him and his diagrams. But most of the lines on there reach the vanishing point at different angles than C,H,E. This is to be expected, it is simply a matter of how your brain perceives depth. Lines further away from eye level, will approach the vanishing point at a steeper angle. In other words.. his attempt to explain the sinking ship phenomenon via his 'law of perspective' DOESN'T WORK or make any sense for that matter. Neither do his diagrams. I'm ready to debate.