Debunking the 'law of perspective'

Bushido:

Ah, I see what you were getting at. My bad.

Well ok, so the diagram provided has a tsumani in it. However the effect could be observed with normal waves, but there would have to be a constant wall of water (ie compounded waves) at all times. Obviously, while possible, this is avoidable.

And the "wall of water" becomes more constant the further out the boat is, as I mentioned! Over several miles, the effect of obscuration is compounded since individual waves are no longer distinguishable.

Agreed. Your wave would have to be amazingly tall and constantly aligned.  This doesn't happen every time you view a ship.  It's not reliable.

You're right - it doesn't happen the same every time you view a ship. Again, I suggest you observe the sinking ship phenomenom on both a stormy day and a calm day and take note of the difference. (The sinking ship effect will still occur on a calm day, but the effect will be less acute).

As for the tsunami accusations, I apologize. The diagram wasn't intended to be accurate (to scale), it was intended to demonstrate the principle.

And as for the pictures, I don't see the big deal.

The first one: The buildings do not appear to be sinking below the horizon. They're getting smaller (to the viewer) due to the rules (since law seems to trouble some people) of perspective, and the shore is getting predictably less distinct due to atmospheric distortion. Even in the distance, the shore can still be made out.

I'm guessing the second one was an attempt to show that the waves close to the observer do not affect obscuration if the viewer is higher than said waves (or unless the waves are high enough to come between the observer and the object under observation). This is correct - I don't think I was disputing this.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that Dogplatter actually has the balls and integrity to come back and continue to debate a post, unlike our dear friend Tom Bishop. Dogplatter, I still disagree with you, and I will show you why in just a moment, but I do think it's a nice change for an FEer to come back and continue a debate.

Now for my rebuttal.

I've put together a simple diagram which will help aid me in my argument.



Its purpose is to sequentially illustrate what an object would look like moving farther away from an observer in two scenarios - on a globe, and indeed as it does in reality in reality (Fig 1) or on a flat plane (Fig 2). The dark blue represents the sea as you may have guessed. With the light blue line, I am accounting for your "wall of water", purely for the sake of argument. Again, I believe there is an error here, and previous threads have dealt with it. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is there. Let's say that there is this compound effect that rises slightly above and obscures the true horizon. Now this ultimatelly changes nothing, as you will see. Before I move on, I would like to point out that in both scenarios, the object has reached the distance at which it would begin to 'sink' on the RE model.

On a globe, the effect you see (be it with a 'sinking' ship or a setting sun or whatever) is the one depicted in Figure 1. Once the object reaches a certain point (i.e. the horizon) it begins to 'sink' suddenly and distinctly and the effect does not last long. However, on a flat plane this would NOT be the case. On a flat plane, the object would continue to get smaller and smaller. Yes, given this 'wall of water' it would eventually be obscured, but it would be obscured by "shrinking" into the waves, not "sinking" into them. The same would be true for a sunset. I really don't know if I can be any clearer about this. It's really not rocket science.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that Dogplatter actually has the balls and integrity to come back and continue to debate a post, unlike our dear friend Tom Bishop. Dogplatter, I still disagree with you, and I will show you why in just a moment, but I do think it's a nice change for an FEer to come back and continue a debate.

Now for my rebuttal.

I've put together a simple diagram which will help aid me in my argument.



Its purpose is to sequentially illustrate what an object would look like moving farther away from an observer in two scenarios - on a globe, and indeed as it does in reality in reality (Fig 1) or on a flat plane (Fig 2). The dark blue represents the sea as you may have guessed. With the light blue line, I am accounting for your "wall of water", purely for the sake of argument. Again, I believe there is an error here, and previous threads have dealt with it. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is there. Let's say that there is this compound effect that rises slightly above and obscures the true horizon. Now this ultimatelly changes nothing, as you will see. Before I move on, I would like to point out that in both scenarios, the object has reached the distance at which it would begin to 'sink' on the RE model.

On a globe, the effect you see (be it with a 'sinking' ship or a setting sun or whatever) is the one depicted in Figure 1. Once the object reaches a certain point (i.e. the horizon) it begins to 'sink' suddenly and distinctly and the effect does not last long. However, on a flat plane this would NOT be the case. On a flat plane, the object would continue to get smaller and smaller. Yes, given this 'wall of water' it would eventually be obscured, but it would be obscured by "shrinking" into the waves, not "sinking" into them. The same would be true for a sunset. I really don't know if I can be any clearer about this. It's really not rocket science.

You make a good point, but here's what I've done:
I'm not sure if you intentionally did it, but this may prevent some FE'ers to attack a petty issue.  The RE ship would get smaller, too, so I made another picture.  And, as you can see, it doesn't affect the... er... effects of the sinking ship!

You make a very good point and I don't disagree at all.

Yes, you're absolutelly right, thanks very much for that correction. I had the sun's motion in mind initially, and I guess I had a brain fart and failed to account for the fact that an object such as a ship dissapearing, would also show a decrease in size as it did. So with that in mind, my diagram is accurate for showing what a sunset would look like on RE vs. FE (excluding the whole sun being a black box thing.. lol). Anyway, thanks for noticing that.

Edit: There is one minor correction for yours as well. The object would sink slightly in the FE model but only behind the light blue line. Thats the 'wall of water' that is obscuring our view, that for the sake of argument I'm leaving in there. So the bottom section of the object would be slightly obscured by that light blue line, after which it would shrink into it. Just another petty difference. And if any FE'er thinks of saying 'but the object shrinks in the RE model as well' don't bother. The object would shrink as thesublime has pointed out, but would dissapear via the 'sinking' effect at a faster rate. And if you wanna pick that one to death don't bother with that either. The setting of the sun is an even easier example to use. It doesn't shrink at all, but it definitelly would shrink the same as the object shown in the diagram in the FE model.

I'm guessing the second one was an attempt to show that the waves close to the observer do not affect obscuration if the viewer is higher than said waves (or unless the waves are high enough to come between the observer and the object under observation). This is correct - I don't think I was disputing this.

Actually the sinking ship effect you are describing would occur if the observer was higher than the vessel. As we know, the horizon is always at eye level with the observer and 90 degrees parallel to the ground no matter the altitude. From a beach, from a mountain, and from a plane, the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. The horizon does not "get lower" as one ascends in altitude. The line of the horizon never sinks or descends.

From the Perspective Handbook:

Horizon line and Eye level

"Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level. It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else."

Sir R. Ball from the London Journal of 18th July says:

"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and balloon seemed to be stationary."

In general, perspective is not about how the world is, but how we perceive the world.

HEY! You said something of note!!!! I'm proud of you.

I fully understand the criticism you guys (sublime and slappy) are making, and it's easy to see why one might think this would cause a problem on a Flat Earth. It is empirically clear that the phenomenom in the "RE" section of sublime's ammended diagram is what we see when we observe the phenomenom. However, the "FE" section of the diagram still fails to take into account obscuration by water fluctuation which I've been hammering away at in this thread.

Perspective, as sublime has demonstrated, is an insufficient explanation for the actual disappearance of the lower parts of the ship. I'm still standing by my assertion that the compound effect of waves obscures the lower half of the boat, and that if the experiment could be conducted on a perfectly flat body of water, the bottom of the ship would remain visible (almost) as far away as the top half of the ship (I say almost because it's possible that other factors could marginally obscure the bottom of the boat in this hypothetical experiment, atmospheric distortion, higher water vapour content close to the surface, etc. These factors are not relevent in the scope of this discussion, since on such a local level as bottom-of-ship to top-of-ship they would be minute).

I put it to Round Earthers to explain why the effect is observably more acute in stormy weather. If the sinking effect is genuinely caused by curvature, it should be predictable and consistent regardless of the choppiness of the sea.

I'm still standing by my assertion that the compound effect of waves obscures the lower half of the boat, and that if the experiment could be conducted on a perfectly flat body of water, the bottom of the ship would remain visible (almost) as far away as the top half of the ship (I say almost because it's possible that other factors could marginally obscure the bottom of the boat in this hypothetical experiment, atmospheric distortion, higher water vapour content close to the surface, etc. These factors are not relevent in the scope of this discussion, since on such a local level as bottom-of-ship to top-of-ship they would be minute).

You seem to forget that eventually the whole ship disappears and not only its lower hull.

You seem to forget that eventually the whole ship disappears and not only its lower hull.

And this is where the atmospheric distortion comes in. Over greater distances, the semi-opaque air between the observer and the ship eventually renders it invisible (to the naked eye, the effect is also enhanced by the perspective effect (the tinyness of the ship in the viewer's vision - hence the reason it is sometimes possible to see ships which are not visible to the naked eye with the use of a telescope).

Quote from: Bushido on June 10, 2007, 08:03:46 AM

You seem to forget that eventually the whole ship disappears and not only its lower hull.

And this is where the atmospheric distortion comes in. Over greater distances, the semi-opaque air between the observer and the ship eventually renders it invisible (to the naked eye, the effect is also enhanced by the perspective effect (the tinyness of the ship in the viewer's vision - hence the reason it is sometimes possible to see ships which are not visible to the naked eye with the use of a telescope).

How can we see the Moon which is 3000+ mi away from us, but we cannot see as far as 6 mi on the Earth?

Quote from: Bushido on June 10, 2007, 08:03:46 AM

You seem to forget that eventually the whole ship disappears and not only its lower hull.

And this is where the atmospheric distortion comes in. Over greater distances, the semi-opaque air between the observer and the ship eventually renders it invisible (to the naked eye, the effect is also enhanced by the perspective effect (the tinyness of the ship in the viewer's vision - hence the reason it is sometimes possible to see ships which are not visible to the naked eye with the use of a telescope).

Yes, but there's a difference between fading and sinking.

Ships sink over the horizon.

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:36:09 AM

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Agreed. Why are we still able to see the moon as it sinks over the horizon?  Why are we able to see stars that are right on the horizon?  The light from these would have to go through more atmosphere than the Eiffel Tower or Mount Everest or whatever.


Wait, wait, I got it.  Cold light penetrates atmosphere!  And so does starlight and sunlight!

How convenient.

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:36:09 AM

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Yes it is. You look at an angle but not straight ahead.

Quote from: Bushido on June 10, 2007, 10:42:23 AM

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:36:09 AM

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Agreed. Why are we still able to see the moon as it sinks over the horizon?  Why are we able to see stars that are right on the horizon?  The light from these would have to go through more atmosphere than the Eiffel Tower or Mount Everest or whatever.


Wait, wait, I got it.  Cold light penetrates atmosphere!  And so does starlight and sunlight!

How convenient.

Have you ever watched a sunset where half the sun is missing before it hits the horizon?

Quote from: Bushido on June 10, 2007, 10:42:23 AM

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:36:09 AM

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Yes it is. You look at an angle but not straight ahead.

Well, it is certainly more than 6 miles.

Quote from: thesublime514 on June 10, 2007, 10:45:00 AM

Quote from: Bushido on June 10, 2007, 10:42:23 AM

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:36:09 AM

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Agreed. Why are we still able to see the moon as it sinks over the horizon?  Why are we able to see stars that are right on the horizon?  The light from these would have to go through more atmosphere than the Eiffel Tower or Mount Everest or whatever.


Wait, wait, I got it.  Cold light penetrates atmosphere!  And so does starlight and sunlight!

How convenient.

Have you ever watched a sunset where half the sun is missing before it hits the horizon?

No.

have you...?

Yes of course I have you see them all the time.

Yes of course I have you see them all the time.

I bet you're high on those occasions.

Ships sink over the horizon.

I wish I could sink over things.

Quote from: thesublime514 on June 10, 2007, 10:35:17 AM

Ships sink over the horizon.

I wish I could sink over things.

Sigh.

I blame English.

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:47:17 AM

Quote from: Bushido on June 10, 2007, 10:42:23 AM

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:36:09 AM

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Yes it is. You look at an angle but not straight ahead.

Well, it is certainly more than 6 miles.

Yeah and it's also through a lot less atmosphere.

I blame English.

Me too.

Quote from: Bushido on June 10, 2007, 10:49:04 AM

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:47:17 AM

Quote from: Bushido on June 10, 2007, 10:42:23 AM

Quote from: Kasroa on June 10, 2007, 10:36:09 AM

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Yes it is. You look at an angle but not straight ahead.

Well, it is certainly more than 6 miles.

Yeah and it's also through a lot less atmosphere.

Less than what?

Less than at the horizon

Less than at the horizon

The horizon is a fictious line 6 miles away from you.

What's your point?

What's your point?

The line of sight to the Moon has more atmosphere than the line of sight to the horizon.

How does it?