Debunking the 'law of perspective'

  • 139 Replies
  • 30896 Views
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #60 on: June 10, 2007, 11:16:15 AM »
The horizon is a fictious line 6 miles away from you.

How does an imaginary line go about trying to curve itself? Sorry if no one gets this, I'm making fun of sokarul.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2007, 11:17:42 AM »
The horizon is a fictious line 6 miles away from you.

How does an imaginary line go about trying to curve itself? Sorry if no one gets this, I'm making fun of sokarul.

Wrong thread. Suffocate with your hood.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2007, 11:18:55 AM »
Wrong thread. Suffocate with your hood.

But my hood isn't alive.  ;)
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2007, 11:19:25 AM »
Neither should you be.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2007, 11:21:21 AM »
Perhaps. I think Gayer would be disappointed though.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2007, 11:55:01 AM »
Neither should you be.

If you're living a life, I am Jack Nicholson.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2007, 12:04:21 PM »
Wrong thread. Suffocate with your hood.

But my hood isn't alive.  ;)

Hahahaha.  You can't win an argument against this guy.  Oh man..

I drew a diagram for all you people whose mental capacities have somehow been compromised.
The blue is the earth.
The green is the atmosphere.
The redish line is the line of vision of someone looking toward the horizon.

In the first diagram, the person is looking toward Mount Everest.  This is the blue thingy at which the line of vision stops.  Now, let's say I'm the person.  I cannot see Mount Everest from where I am.

In the second diagram, the person (me, I guess) is looking toward the horizon and sees a star.  Now as we know, I can see a star on the horizon.  I have done it many times, to all directions.





Hmmm.  The person cannot see Mount Everest, but he can see a star.  The star's light has to go through more atmosphere than the mountain.  Explanations?

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2007, 12:06:59 PM »
You can't possibly expect them to explain that.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2007, 12:10:44 PM »
Hahahaha.  You can't win an argument against this guy.  Oh man..

Depends. If the argument involves a subject of opinion and winning the opinions of others, it's very possible I could not be convincing enough to win.

In regards to arguments involving facts, then I'm much more likely to never lose.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 12:23:25 PM by divito »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2007, 12:12:47 PM »
Quote
Hmmm.  The person cannot see Mount Everest, but he can see a star.  The star's light has to go through more atmosphere than the mountain.  Explanations?

Stars don't appear within five degrees of the horizon, where the bulk of the atmosphere lays.

Image 1: http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1210491/eng/

Image 2: http://www.capella-observatory.com/images/StarTrails/STRICHSPUR-08.jpg

Stars will fade out as they approach the horizon line.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 09:44:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #70 on: June 10, 2007, 12:19:48 PM »
Quote
Hmmm.  The person cannot see Mount Everest, but he can see a star.  The star's light has to go through more atmosphere than the mountain.  Explanations?

Stars don't appear within five degrees of the horizon, where the bulk of the atmosphere lays.

Image 1: http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1210491/eng/

Image 2: http://www.capella-observatory.com/images/StarTrails/STRICHSPUR-08.jpg

Stars will fade out as they approach the horizon.



1.  Photographic proof isn't allowed (?)
2.  We don't know even exactly what these photos are showing
3.  Good post, though, Tom; we'd like to see more of them
4.  With a powerful telescope you should still be able to see them.  I realize this isn't proof, though.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2007, 12:22:41 PM »
The line of sight to the moon, or stars, or whatever does have more atmosphere in the way than the line of sight to the horizon in most instances, as thesublime has already pointed out. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon), you can calculate the distance to the horizon depending on how high you are. At 1.70 m, the distance to the horizon is approx 4.7 km. So that's 4.7 km worth of atmosphere you are looking through just to see to the horizon. However, to look at the moon, you are looking through at least 6 km of atmosphere and at most 20 km of atmosphere (since the Troposphere (which contains around 3/4 of the earth's atmosphere) stretches from 6-20 km, the higher numbers being around the equator). So even if you were looking at the moon straight on you would still be looking through around 20 km of troposphere at the equator. The closer to the horizon the moon gets, the more atmosphere you are looking through. Even if you couldn't see stars near the horizon (which in a a really dark area would not be a problem) Tom, you're still looking through more atmosphere when they're 5 degrees above the horizon!

Furthermore, the semi-opaque nature of the atmosphere on a clear day cannot account for the dissapearence of ships at the horizon, since if you rise higher, say to 100 meters (where the horizon line is now at a distance of 36 km) you can once again bring the ship into view, despite the fact that you are not looking through more atmosphere than before. So I'm sorry Dogplatter, but when you're looking at the horizon from a boat or the seashore, the semi-opaque nature of the atmosphere cannot account for the dissapearence of the ship, for if it was responsible, then it should remain obscured even if the observer's altitude rises. Furthermore, the ship does not 'fade' until you can't see it anymore, it 'sinks' very distinctly. I have not seen the same effect in very choppy seas so I cannot give you an honest answer to that. First of all, you'd have to show me evidence that the sinking effect is more pronounced. Second of all, if it is, I would suggest that very choppy seas are typically associated with bad weather, in which case the horizon itself may be poorly visible. Or depending on just how choppy the seas are, waves could directly obscure the line of sight to the horizon or the ship itself (although this is where we're talking about those tsunami-like waves). In any case, having not observed the phenomenon in both set of circumstances myself, I will refrain from speculating further.

I would also say that the diagrams do attempt to compensate for your 'compounded wall of water.' thesublime didn't correct for it appropriatelly as I pointed out, but I did mention in the post right after what it would look like (i.e. the pale blue line obscuring the view). You will agree I'm sure that any compound wall of water to the horizon would only obscure the true horizon by a set distantance, and no more. The ship would therefore shrink before it became obscured by this wall. It would not 'sink'. But if this phenomenon isn't clear enough with the ship, then let's discuss the same effect with the sun or the moon, it makes no difference to me. When they set, neither shrink until they are obscured. They both sink beyond the horizon very definitivelly and within a couple of minutes or so, without shrinking at all. Please do not counter by saying they actually look bigger and thus some effect of the atmosphere is covering the shrinking that happens in reality. I can assure you, they only 'look' bigger upon initial observation. If you take a ruler even and compare their sizes, you will see that they are not at all bigger near the horizon than at their zenith.
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2007, 12:25:30 PM »
The atmosphere is not the same density all the way up

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2007, 12:27:33 PM »
Quote
1.  Photographic proof isn't allowed (?)

Sublime, the horizon in that star trail you posted is obscured by some sort of hill.

Quote
4.  With a powerful telescope you should still be able to see them.  I realize this isn't proof, though.

How would a telescope allow you to see through the fog of the atmosphere? The atmosphere consists of atoms, which are not transparent. After a certain far off distance all incoming light will be blocked by a blue-gray haze.

Quote
So even if you were looking at the moon straight on you would still be looking through around 20 km of troposphere at the equator.

The Sun and Moon are brighter and more intense than the stars. Hence, there will be a fog light effect when they approach the horizon. This is why they are modified in color and are visibly dim when they are near the horizon.

Think: Is the sun more intense at zenith overhead, or when it is setting near the horizon?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 12:44:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #74 on: June 10, 2007, 12:32:49 PM »
Quote
1.  Photographic proof isn't allowed (?)

Sublime, the horizon in that star trail you posted is obscured by some sort of hill.

Quote
4.  With a powerful telescope you should still be able to see them.  I realize this isn't proof, though.

How would a telescope allow you to see through the fog of the atmosphere? The atmosphere consists of atoms, which are not transparent. After a certain far off distance all incoming light will be blocked by a blue-gray haze.

1.  That's why I had number two.  Actually, your photos pretty much win that part. Yay for Tom!

2.  You can't prove this and neither can I.  That's why I said it isn't proof.  You can't prove that a telescope can't see through the atmosphere unless you went out and bought one.

And also, you just got owned by slappy, so address all of what he's saying, and not just single quotes for which you might have a rebuttal.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #75 on: June 10, 2007, 12:34:42 PM »
Like I said, on a hazy day check the sun set. The sun starts to fade before it hits the horizon.

Hell the very fact that you can check the sun at all proves the atmosphere is doing some serious blocking out.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #76 on: June 10, 2007, 12:42:06 PM »
You are indeed correct. I was mistaken in the first paragraph of my post with respect to the moon and such and I take it back. The density of the atmosphere is particularly important as you pointed out. Regardless, the rest of the matrial in my post still stands.
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #77 on: June 10, 2007, 01:25:18 PM »
Yes, but there's a difference between fading and sinking.

Ships sink over the horizon.

They partially sink, and then disappear from view completely. I urge you to observe this phenomenom in person.

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

You're part right, part wrong. Yes, there's a greater atmosphere-covered distance between us and the moon (in my model the atmosphere is vertically around 9.5 miles thick). But bear in mind that the atmosphere gets way thinner even a very short distance up. Many people have to wear oxygen masks even to climb mountains - there's just so much less air up there (even RE scientists and observers will confirm this). Atmospheric distortion is wholly based on the thickness of the atmosphere. On the Earth's surface, where the atmosphere is thickest, the effect is acute, usually cutting off vision at about six or so miles. Even as high as a mountain peak, the atmosphere is far thinner, and the effect less acute.

The reduced thickness of the atmosphere with altitude is essentially indisputable. Measurements of density can be taken at various altitudes to back this up (and have been in the past).
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #78 on: June 10, 2007, 01:47:33 PM »
Quote
The atmosphere consists of atoms, which are not transparent.

I just thought I'd point out briefly that this is a very strange statement that does not explain the issue. Atoms themselves do not have transparency/opacity property in the way we commonly understand it. A molecule will either totally absorb a photon, or not (it may re-emit it, but that's not the point). I just wanted to point this out for accuracy cos I'm like that. The point is not in principle invalid though, in the sense that the atmosphere is not totally transparent.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #79 on: June 10, 2007, 01:55:50 PM »
Gin is correct. However Dogplatter, I agree with you on this (the matter of the atmospheric density and that it is not completelly transparent). As I have already said, I was mistaken on the matter in my previous post. I still disagree with you on how the siking ship phenomeon would appear on a flast surface however. The ship does dissapear from view completelly, but this is due to the fact that it sinks, it still does not shrink into the horizon until it can no longer be made out, as it would on a flat earth (you can see this with a telescope), and it is not obscured by the atmosphere (on a clear day) before the sinking effect is 'complete'. If it would finally dissapear from view as a result of being obscured by the atmosphere as you suggest, then one would not be able to bring it back into sight by increasing one's elevation. I'm not talking about a huge increase. Let's say only 50 or so meters. I think you will agree that the atmospheric density will be relativelly constant over such small changes in altitude.

However, given that we do not have many pictures or video footage of this phenomenon readily available to us, we can bicker about it all day. We can however discuss a different object: the setting or rising of the sun. Perhaps it would have been wiser to start with this instead, but no matter. The setting of the sun is caused by the same effect in FE theory as the sinking of the boat (the law of perspective etc), and also both are caused by the same effect in RE theory: namely the rotundity of the earth. So just so we're clear here, I have no intention of switching topics, I only intend to make it easier to continue this debate. So like I've said in my other post (and this has yet to be adressed) a setting sun would look completelly different on the FE than on the RE. And we're not even talking about the speed of the sun's motion across the sky yet, which would also be significantly affected. Here we're just talking about the fact that it dips suddenly into the horizon and dissapears in a matter of mintes, where as on a flat earth, it would only shrink and become faint until it dissapeared completelly from view (though I seriously question if even all the atmosphere on a flat earth would be enough to obscure the sun's light completelly.)
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 03:43:16 PM by slappy »
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #80 on: June 10, 2007, 03:42:07 PM »
The atmosphere is not the same density all the way up

Never mind. You still have the atmosphere with the same density plus a little more.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #81 on: June 10, 2007, 03:42:45 PM »
Why are you arguing when you can see for yourself every time the sun goes down?

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #82 on: June 10, 2007, 03:48:56 PM »
Bushido, there's no use arguing this point. Unless you can show mathematically (including density data) that there's more air for light to pass through one way or the other, it's a dead end. Besides, I do believe they're right on this particular point. This still doesn't mean that the ship would dissapear because of being obscured by the atmosphere but anyway.. how about that sunset guys..??
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #83 on: June 10, 2007, 03:49:52 PM »
whatever.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #84 on: June 10, 2007, 03:51:22 PM »
Hey less of the "they're" I aint no FEer

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #85 on: June 10, 2007, 03:52:49 PM »
lol sorry.. i didn't mean they're as in the FEers specifically
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #86 on: June 10, 2007, 03:53:36 PM »
Good 'cause I don't want to have to get slappy with ya slappy!

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #87 on: June 10, 2007, 04:23:02 PM »
lol my, how clever you are
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #88 on: June 10, 2007, 04:23:37 PM »
Why, spankyou for noticing!

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #89 on: June 10, 2007, 05:38:47 PM »
OK seriously, is this debate gonna continue or what? Please tell me you FEers aren't going to start ignoring this now.
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..