Debunking the 'law of perspective'

  • 139 Replies
  • 30892 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #90 on: June 10, 2007, 06:01:48 PM »
I believe Dogplatter has already sufficiently answered the question.

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.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #91 on: June 10, 2007, 06:38:57 PM »
I believe not. If you had read my last post on the matter, you will have seen that I disagree with what Dogplatter said but since we could bicker about it all day and since we have no video or images to use, we won't get anywhere. And so I suggested we discuss the setting/rising of the sun instead, which is caused by the same respective mechanisms that cause the 'sinking' ship effect in both models. We tried discussing sunsets with you already, but you ran away. Of course, if this is your definition of a sufficiently answered question, it's no wonder. So again I ask you.. or rather I ask Dogplatter (since he doesn't seem to copy and paste all his stuff like you do).. why does the sun dip suddenly into the horizon the way it does, as opposed to moving farther away and shrinking as it does so?Again, I have reworked the diagram:




Oh and Tom, please don't just tell me it's due to the law of perspective before you specifically adress my first post where I make my criticism of it. And keep in mind, that I am still indulging and probably greatly exaggerating your wall of water with that light blue line. Even with that in mind, on the FE the sun would have to shrink into it as I've depicted, and this would take considerably longer than a sunset takes in actuality, not to mention that it would look completelly different. And also, while you're at it, why don't you adress that Sunspot.xlsx program, and enlighten us as to the discrepancy observed in the motion of the sun across the sky as it is in actuality as opposed to how it would appear on a flat earth.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 07:01:57 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..

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #92 on: June 10, 2007, 07:32:50 PM »
Please read Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

    "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour."

Therefore, the more the sun recedes, the larger it will appear.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #93 on: June 10, 2007, 07:37:47 PM »
But in order for this to be true, this must outweigh the shrinkage of the sun moving away, or else it will have an aura but if it's smaller it won't affect it as much.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #94 on: June 10, 2007, 08:10:32 PM »
Please read Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

    "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour."

Therefore, the more the sun recedes, the larger it will appear.
The problem with this explanation is that the size of the sun and moon are perfectly measurable any time of the day and night, with clear and well defined borders and no interference with the auras, both on the sun and moon at any time.

Since you have a Celestron computerized telescope, you can easily put the protections that allow you to see the sun without damaging your eyes, consisting either of dark filters or a screen where the image of the sun will be projected. The sun, its surface and its spots are clearly visible, so you can differentiate the aura from the actual sun. All the same is true for the moon, except you need no protections.

If Rowbotham is right, you will see that the sun, excluding the aura, is at least 60% smaller near sunrise and sundown compared with midday (usually even 90% smaller). The case with the moon is similar.

So, cheer up, get your telescope out (it does not get any less expensive while stored in the cellar), make your own measurements and post them here. We will wait expectantly.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #95 on: June 10, 2007, 08:18:39 PM »
HAha well Trig just stole part of my reply (but did a better job than I did anyway) but I also have a bit more to add. Your answer also doesn't address the problem that it would take a lot longer for the sun to set on the FE, and it still wouldn't set the way it does (by sinking) but rather by gradually fading. And last but not least, you still haven't adressed that sunspots program and the discrepancy in the sun's speed that would be observed on an FE throughout the day. You completelly ignore that every time it is brought up.
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 #96 on: June 10, 2007, 10:33:17 PM »
HAha well Trig just stole part of my reply (but did a better job than I did anyway) but I also have a bit more to add. Your answer also doesn't address the problem that it would take a lot longer for the sun to set on the FE, and it still wouldn't set the way it does (by sinking) but rather by gradually fading. And last but not least, you still haven't adressed that sunspots program and the discrepancy in the sun's speed that would be observed on an FE throughout the day. You completelly ignore that every time it is brought up.
Are you kidding? TomB has gone into virtual hibernation. He's ignoring all sensible arguments. He's not posting nearly as much and hardly anything original. I suspect that it's getting rather gloomy for TomB there in Carmel.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #97 on: June 11, 2007, 04:35:53 AM »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #98 on: June 11, 2007, 08:15:24 AM »

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #99 on: June 11, 2007, 08:36:45 AM »
And?
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #100 on: June 11, 2007, 09:01:38 AM »
Here's a new spin on the "wave" reasoning.  The logic goes like this.

1) As distance out to sea increases, so does the probability of large waves obscuring the hull of a ship.
2) As distance out to sea increases, so does the probability of said waves being larger than previous waves.

So far, so good.  From these, it can be gleaned that more and more of a ship's hull will be partially obscured by waves at some point in time the farther out to sea it goes.

Where RE and FE differ is in the pervasiveness and magnitude of those waves.  According to FE theory (please correct me if I'm wrong), these probabilities eventually become such that the effective sea level at greater distances gradually increases, thus consistently obscuring an increasing portion of the boat's hull.

Let's take a sidestep for a moment and talk about probability distributions.  For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume the obscuring effect is roughly linear with distance, but you can do the math with any distribution, if you want to.  Linear obscuring with distance implies a mostly uniform probability distribution, but since we (hopefully) agree that there isn't an equal probability of a 3-mile high wave as a 3-inch high wave, we know it must taper off at some point.



So far so good?

This kind of probability density function leads us to another graph (again, just for illustrative purposes) representing the effective sea level (not necessarily the highest wave) at a given distance.



Now, even though this probability distribution is highly unrealistic, we'll allow it for the sake of argument.  Even given that the effective sea level rises linearly with distance as a function of wave action, you can't make an argument that said waves obscure a vessel consistently.  Why not?  Because the vessel is still buoyant.  This probability distribution applies to the water the boat floats on as well as the water in front of it, regardless of viewing angle.  No matter what probability distribution you use, it will always prove that the boat remains visible in its entirety at least as much as it is obscured in its entirety.

Edit: conclusion corrected as per below.

Thoughts?  Counterpoints?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2007, 10:35:44 AM by YetAnotherSkeptic »

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #101 on: June 11, 2007, 09:09:58 AM »
...
Thoughts?  Counterpoints?
One thought: You're amazing. Good job.

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #102 on: June 11, 2007, 09:15:57 AM »
And?

Your thoughts are insignificant in this thread.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #103 on: June 11, 2007, 09:24:25 AM »
And?

Your thoughts are insignificant in this thread.

And yet you continue to refute this by entertaining me.

As for the real reason you keep posting at me, let's call this midgame, shall we?

Check.

(think real hard before you respond again, it may be your last post).

*wave* :-*
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #104 on: June 11, 2007, 09:27:07 AM »
Here's a new spin on the "wave" reasoning.  The logic goes like this.

1) As distance out to sea increases, so does the probability of large waves obscuring the hull of a ship.
2) As distance out to sea increases, so does the probability of said waves being larger than previous waves.

So far, so good.  From these, it can be gleaned that more and more of a ship's hull will be partially obscured by waves at some point in time the farther out to sea it goes.

Where RE and FE differ is in the pervasiveness and magnitude of those waves.  According to FE theory (please correct me if I'm wrong), these probabilities eventually become such that the effective sea level at greater distances gradually increases, thus consistently obscuring an increasing portion of the boat's hull.

Let's take a sidestep for a moment and talk about probability distributions.  For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume the obscuring effect is roughly linear with distance, but you can do the math with any distribution, if you want to.  Linear obscuring with distance implies a mostly uniform probability distribution, but since we (hopefully) agree that there isn't an equal probability of a 3-mile high wave as a 3-inch high wave, we know it must taper off at some point.



So far so good?

This kind of probability density function leads us to another graph (again, just for illustrative purposes) representing the effective sea level (not necessarily the highest wave) at a given distance.



Now, even though this probability distribution is highly unrealistic, we'll allow it for the sake of argument.  Even given that the effective sea level rises linearly with distance as a function of wave action, you can't make an argument that said waves obscure a vessel consistently.  Why not?  Because the vessel is still buoyant.  This probability distribution applies to the water the boat floats on as well as the water in front of it, regardless of viewing angle.  No matter what probability distribution you use, it will always prove that the boat remains visible in its entirety.

Thoughts?  Counterpoints?

I am trying to understand the probability distribution thing. Can you provide a little more info?
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #105 on: June 11, 2007, 09:48:59 AM »
Well, it'll be a bit of a crash course, but I'll try.

The first graph indicates the probability that a given wave will be a particular height.  In other words, at any distance d, there is an equal probability that the wave will be any height from 0 up until the "corner" point.  The axes are unlabeled because it's just an illustration and I didn't want to presuppose anything.

Basically, it means that a wave at any distance from the shore is equally likely to be 0, 5, 10, 15 inches tall, etc.

I did a bit of hand-waving to get to the second graph. For anyone looking for a rigorous mathematical proof, I apologize.  Basically what it shows is the consequences of a probability distribution like that, coupled with the FE assumptions stated at the top.

Namely, that as the distance from the shore gets larger, the probability that any wave at a given time will be larger, increases.  Over time, this means that the effective visible height of the water will be larger at larger distances from the shore.  Again, it's hand-wavy, but that's because I'm building on a principle I don't believe.

Edit:  But you don't really need to understand the graphs to understand the conclusion.  You can reach the same conclusion with just the FE assumptions.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2007, 10:04:24 AM by YetAnotherSkeptic »

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #106 on: June 11, 2007, 09:55:24 AM »
(think real hard before you respond again, it may be your last post).

Is that a threat or a fact?

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #107 on: June 11, 2007, 10:15:38 AM »
Brief correction to my conclusion:

The argument shows that, using FE principles, you can prove that a boat spends at least as much time unobscured as obscured, not that it remains visible at all times, as I originally stated.

Nonetheless, a consistently obscured boat hull is not a reasonable expectation.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #108 on: June 11, 2007, 10:31:16 AM »
Brief correction to my conclusion:

The argument shows that, using FE principles, you can prove that a boat spends at least as much time unobscured as obscured, not that it remains visible at all times, as I originally stated.

Nonetheless, a consistently obscured boat hull is not a reasonable expectation.

I see. Thank you.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #109 on: June 11, 2007, 10:32:58 AM »
Brief correction to my conclusion:

The argument shows that, using FE principles, you can prove that a boat spends at least as much time unobscured as obscured, not that it remains visible at all times, as I originally stated.

Nonetheless, a consistently obscured boat hull is not a reasonable expectation.

I see. Thank you. I didn't understand anything.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #110 on: June 11, 2007, 10:36:50 AM »
(think real hard before you respond again, it may be your last post).

Is that a threat or a fact?

Threats are beneath me. Remember me when the slap happens.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #111 on: June 11, 2007, 10:40:06 AM »
(think real hard before you respond again, it may be your last post).

Is that a threat or a fact?

Threats are beneath me.

But real knowledge is certainly above you.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #112 on: June 11, 2007, 10:43:43 AM »
Ok, Professor.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #113 on: June 11, 2007, 10:44:27 AM »
Ok, Professor.

Now, GTFO the thread and sit in the last bench, dunce.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #114 on: June 11, 2007, 10:47:28 AM »
I'd rather watch you make a fool of yourself with random attempts at making me look bad.

A - In order for me to look bad, the text of mine you quote needs to, you know, actually showcase me being an idiot.

B - I have to honestly care what these people think about me. The list is less than 8 beings. You aren't on it.

C - We both know you are still upset over that pm business, and I still get hard when I think about it.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Bushido

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #115 on: June 11, 2007, 10:53:38 AM »
I'd rather watch you make a fool of yourself with random attempts at making me look bad.

A - In order for me to look bad, the text of mine you quote needs to, you know, actually showcase me being an idiot.

You are an idiot of the medieval type. To say that the eye canít see whatís further than some distance (in free space) is plain ignorance. Then, you got deeper in the shit when you said that we donít see Polaris, but only rhe light coming from it. Of course, you Texan retard. How can the light now when to stop and not hit our retina? And, remember, you claim to be a photographer.

The other points are not important. Itís something like the thing you keep inventing that Iím Tom or Fecals. For all I know, you maybe Tom Bishop.

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #116 on: June 11, 2007, 01:27:51 PM »
Hey not to spoil the party or whatever, but would u two mind continuing your exchange in another thread and removing the posts from this one? Coz this is how good debate threads get sidetracked and eventually die, with useless bs arguments.
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..

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #117 on: June 11, 2007, 02:38:05 PM »
I'd rather watch you make a fool of yourself with random attempts at making me look bad.

A - In order for me to look bad, the text of mine you quote needs to, you know, actually showcase me being an idiot.

You are an idiot of the medieval type. To say that the eye canít see whatís further than some distance (in free space) is plain ignorance. Then, you got deeper in the shit when you said that we donít see Polaris, but only rhe light coming from it. Of course, you Texan retard. How can the light now when to stop and not hit our retina? And, remember, you claim to be a photographer.

The other points are not important. Itís something like the thing you keep inventing that Iím Tom or Fecals. For all I know, you maybe Tom Bishop.

Yeah, you Texan retard!  Stop contaminating my state!

Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'
« Reply #118 on: June 11, 2007, 09:42:08 PM »
So FEers.. what say you?? Trig and I have both brought up points against your rebuttal, and YetAnotherSkeptic has contributed with a valid point of his own. So far the silence is deafening.
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 #119 on: June 12, 2007, 12:03:37 AM »
I'm not a FE-er, but I bet I can defend (or attack) it better than the rest of the retards here. Like I said, you did not take into account the possibility of light curving for various reasons.